We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodlands Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Woodlands Court, you can give feedback on this service.
This unannounced inspection took place on 9 October 2017. At the last inspection on 16 April 2015 the service was rated as ‘good’. At this inspection we found overall the service remained ‘good’.
A registered manager was in post at the time of the inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Staff were aware of how to reduce risks to people to try and keep them safe. Staff were only recruited after the necessary pre-employment checks had been completed. There were enough staff working in the service to meet people’s needs.
Staff received the training and support they required to carry out their roles effectively. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People received the support they needed to ensure they had adequate food and drink that they enjoyed. People were referred to the relevant healthcare professionals whenever this was needed.
Staff supported people in a kind and caring manner which promoted their dignity and privacy. If needed people were supported to make decisions about their care.
Care plans provided staff with the current information they required to meet people’s needs. People were supported to take part in activities that promoted their emotional, physical and spiritual well-being. People were encouraged to raise any concerns they had and felt that they would be dealt with appropriately.
There was an effective quality assurance system in place to identify any areas for improvement. Staff and people who used the service were encouraged to be involved in the running of the service and give their views on any improvements needed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Woodlands Court is registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service currently supports 19 people living in their own flats, in one building. The number of hours of care provided to each person varies depending on their individual needs. The service is provided to people with a learning disability.
This unannounced inspection took place on 16 and 21 April 2015. The previous inspection was undertaken on 02 and 03 July 2014 and we found that there were three areas where the provider was required to make improvements. These were in relation to ensuring that people were given the support they required to meet their needs, to the monitoring of the service and having clear and accurate records. The provider submitted an action plan stating that the necessary action would be taken by 30 June 2014. During this inspection we found that the improvements had been made.
At the time of the inspection there was no registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, the new manager had applied to the commission to become the registered manager and their application was being processed.
People felt safe and staff knew what actions to take if they thought that anyone had been harmed in any way.
People received their medicines as prescribed and safe practices had been followed in the administration and recording of medicines.
People confirmed that there were enough staff available to meet their needs. Staff were only appointed after a through recruitment process. Staff were kind and compassionate when working with people. They knew people well and were aware of their history, preferences and likes. People’s privacy and dignity were upheld.
Staff monitored people’s health and welfare needs and acted on issues identified. People had been referred to healthcare professionals when needed.
The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were being followed. This ensured that when needed decisions were made in people’s best interests and they were not having their liberty restricted unless the correct procedures were followed.
People were supported to purchase and prepare the food and drink that they chose.
People had been involved in the assessment and planning of their care. Care records were detailed and gave staff the information they required so that they were aware of how to meet people’s needs.
There was a complaints procedure in place and people felt confident to raise any concerns either with the staff or the manager.
As part of this inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, two healthcare professionals who had regular contact with the home, contracts monitoring officers from the Local Authority, the manager and five members of care staff. We reviewed records relating to the management of the service which included five care plans, daily records, medication records, safeguarding procedures, training records and quality assurance monitoring records.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at
Is the service safe?
Risk assessments regarding people's individual needs and activities were carried out and arrangements were in place to minimise any potential dangers as much as possible. However, we saw that improvements were needed as some risk assessments lacked detail and were not cross referenced to people's care plans. It was not clear how people had been involved in the preparation of their care plan and we did not see any document to evidence that they were in agreement with their care and support to be provided. Improved monitoring of medication needed to be in place to ensure that people safely received their prescribed medication and that the provider had the required amounts of medication in stock.
These issues showed that people could not be sure that their care and support needs were agreed and were being safely met at all times.
Is the service effective?
Observations we made during our inspection confirmed that the people using the service care were assisted to make choices regarding how they wished to spend time during the day either at home or going to local facilities in the community. People met with with staff to discuss activities and plans for the forthcoming week. We saw that staff assisted people to become more confident in the preparation of meals and financial budgeting. The care staff we met were knowledgeable about people's individual care and support needs and they had also received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) so that appropriate arrangements were in place so that people were protected. However, it was not clear how people had been involved in the preparation of their care plan and we did not see any document to evidence that they were in agreement with their care and support to be provided.
Is the service caring?
Observations made during our inspection showed that people received warm, consistent and respectful support from care staff and they were enabled to make choices and changes when required. Observations we made during our inspection confirmed that the care staff provided friendly and attentive support when assisting people during the day. One person told us that, 'I really like living here and the staff help me with going out shopping and keeping my flat tidy.' Staff told us that they were well supported by the new manager and their colleagues so that they could provide safe care and support to people.
Is the service responsive?
We saw that the manager and care staff were attentive and responded to people's queries and concerns in a friendly and respectful manner. However, we saw that people's personal care and social support needs were not always accurately recorded and accompanied by an appropriate risk assessment. It was also not evident, from care records that we saw, how people had been involved in the reviewing and planning of their care and support.
Is the service well led?
The home does not have a registered manager in place. However, a manager has been appointed and has been in post since May 2014. The manager told us that they were submitting an application to become registered with the Care Quality Commission. The staff told us that they felt well supported by the new manager and were regularly trained to provide care and support. Observations made during our inspection showed that staff were enthusiastic, friendly and attentive to ensure that people were supported throughout the day.
However, it was evident from a number of concerns that we had regarding care and support, daily care records, medication administration and ongoing monitoring that quality assurance procedures were still not effective to ensure that people received a good service.
Care and support was well delivered and coordinated but improvements to support plans regarding signing and dating of some documents was needed. There was evidence of peoples' involvement in the reviewing and planning of their care and support.
Records showed that staff were trained and their competency monitored regarding the administration of medication. Staff were aware of their responsibilities when recording medication that they had given or prompted people to take.
There was mandatory training in place to ensure that staff were competent to deliver care. Supervision was regularly provided to staff to monitor their work performance and development needs.
The agency did not have an effective system in place to monitor and audit the quality of the services that were provided to people. Improvements are needed to quality assurance arrangements to monitor and ensure that people receive a safe and effective service.
We found that care had been provided in a manner that ensured that people's individual needs and differences were taken into account. Care plans contained appropriate information about people's assessed needs, although there was not always enough information for staff to follow about the daily routines and the arrangements that support staff had made to meet peoples social needs.
The Medication Administration Records (MAR)charts were not accurate, although this was not the fault of the service and appropriate action had already been taken by the manager to ensure that these records would immediately be corrected.
Staff were supported by regular supervision and a training and development programme that was being introduced for them to advance their knowledge and experience.