Woodlands Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

At our last assessment, we found the provider was breaching legal regulations relating to safe care and treatment, safeguarding service users from abuse and staffing. At this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements and was no longer breaching these legal regulations.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our last assessment, we found the provider had not always prioritised safety. At this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements. However, there was not always a system for staff to reflect on and learn from things that went wrong. Whilst the template for recording incidents included space for staff and managers to reflect on how improvements could be made, this section had not been completed properly. Care plans and risk assessments did not include proactive strategies to help minimise incidents where people became agitated or upset. Nor did they include updates following accidents or incidents to demonstrate learning.

We discussed this with the registered manager, and they agreed to review how staff recorded accidents and incidents and how these were used for learning and making improvements.

Relatives told us they were informed when things went wrong and when people were involved in accidents and incidents.

At our last assessment, we found the provider did not ensure safe transitions for people. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved to the service. They liaised with other care professionals to discuss people’s needs.

Staff supported people to attend hospital and medical appointments. They shared information with the professionals caring for them to make sure everyone understood their needs.

At our last assessment, we found the provider made decisions about people and imposed restrictions without consulting the relevant people who should be involved in these decisions. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The provider requested legal authorisations where restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty for people who did not have the capacity to consent to these. Decisions about people’s care were made in their best interests and for their safety.

The provider had procedures to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff undertook training in these. Staff were able to explain how they recognised and reported abuse. The provider worked with the local safeguarding authority to investigate allegations and to help protect people from avoidable harm.

People using the service and their relatives felt safe.

At our last assessment, we found the provider had not appropriately assessed, managed or mitigated risks to people’s safety and wellbeing. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. However, risk assessments and plans to manage risks were not always detailed enough or personalised. These had not always been updated following incidents and accidents. We discussed this with the registered manager who explained they were in the process of reviewing and updating care plans and risk assessments.

Staff reassured and supported people who became distressed and agitated. However, the provider did not create plans to mitigate the risk of this happening. For example, supporting staff to understand about potential triggers or why people may become distressed.

At our last assessment, we also found the provider did not have appropriate procedures to assess and plan for the risks relating to fire safety. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. There were up to date and clear procedures to be followed in the event of a fire. The building had been assessed and there were regular checks on fire safety. Staff undertook training and completed fire drill evacuation practices.

Staff had undertaken training to understand how to support people to move, how to use equipment and how to support people to eat and drink safely. We observed staff supporting people appropriately and managing risks well.

At our last assessment, we found people did not live in a safe environment. At this assessment, improvements had been made. The provider had completed renovations to the building and an extension. The new environment was safe and well-maintained. People told us they liked the new building and their new bedrooms. People had the equipment they needed. The building was appropriately lit, heated and ventilated. The provider carried out checks to make sure the building and equipment were safe.

At our last assessment, we found the provider had not deployed enough staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. However, there were times of the day when staff found it difficult to ensure people had the attention they needed. For example, before lunch was served several people became distressed, staff were busy attending to pre-lunch tasks and not enough staff were available to support everyone. We discussed this with the registered manager. They explained that members of the management team were usually available to help at busy times of the day. They agreed to review deployment at these times and speak with the staff to ask how and when they could offer additional support.

People and their relatives told us staff were available during the day and night. Their comments included, “You can always find a member of staff”, “There is always someone around at night” and “They are very attentive.”

The provider had suitable procedures for recruiting staff. These included checks on their identity, competence and skills. New staff completed an induction. Managers supported all staff through regular supervision and appraisals of their work.

People told us they thought staff were well trained.

Staff explained the training was useful. A member of staff commented, “I had no previous experience in the caring profession. The managers and other staff have taught and shown me how to provide good care.”

At our last assessment, we found staff did not always follow procedures to prevent and control infections. At this assessment, the provider had made improvements. The building and equipment were clean. There were regular checks on cleanliness. There were appropriate procedures for preventing and controlling infections, cleaning and laundry. Staff had training and understood about these procedures. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) such as gloves and masks when needed.

People using the service and their relatives told us they were happy with cleanliness. Their comments included, “We have a team for cleaning and keeping the home tidy”, “It is always nice and clean” and “They are always sweeping and washing things. They wear gloves and aprons.”

At our last assessment, we found medicines were not always safely managed. At this assessment, the provider had made improvements.

Medicines, including controlled drugs (CDs), were stored securely. Staff carried out regular checks of medicines, including how these were stored. Staff monitored the temperature of medicines rooms and fridges to ensure medicines were safe for use.

Staff administered medicines safely and as intended by the prescriber. Staff recorded administration of medicines. Records were accurate and showed medicines had been appropriately administered. Staff communicated with people’s GP when problems with medicines were identified.

The provider created risk assessments for people’s medicines.

Staff received training about medicines management annually. Managers assessed their knowledge and competency.

Staff created protocols for ‘when required’ medicines. These included instructions about how to safely administer these medicines.

A healthcare professional told us, “Staff are proactive in referring patients for medicines reviews.”