Woodstock Care Home Limited

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

The provider had policies and procedures for responding to incidents, accidents and complaints and staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about these. Staff told us they were confident about how to respond and report correctly.

The provider conducted investigations when incidents occurred and took appropriate action to prevent recurrences. We saw that ‘lessons learned’ were shared with staff teams at service level, as well as companywide.

Staff attended regular meetings, which helped ensure any learning from events was shared and actioned. A member of staff told us, “We often get information of lessons learned, which is always helpful.” Another staff member explained, “If something goes wrong it is reported and investigated immediately by senior staff who discuss how to prevent it from happening in the future. A meeting would take place ensuring everyone knows the outcome of what went wrong and what preventative measures were put in place to avoid this in the future.”

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Suitably trained staff completed and regularly reviewed assessments of people’s health and well-being, risks and wishes, to make sure they accurately reflected their needs.

Care plans were developed and shared with health and social care professionals when required. This included GPs, dietitians, speech and language therapists, physiotherapists and community mental health teams, to ensure people’s well-being was supported and maintained. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to make sure people received appropriate support that met their needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their representatives told us they felt safe and well cared for. A person’s representative told us, “Above and beyond we think [Name] is safe and [Name] feels safe. [Name] didn’t feel safe at home.” Another representative said if they had any concerns, “I would ask one of the staff if I could speak to the manager. Once, [Name] was looking a bit unkempt, but it turned out that [they were] refusing to have [their] hair done.”

The provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place. Staff were knowledgeable about recognising potential abuse and harm. Staff told us they had completed training for safeguarding adults and said they were confident that any concerns raised would be managed appropriately. Staff confirmed they always report any concerns and told us they would also follow the whistleblowing policy if needed.

A member of staff told us, “I record my concerns clearly in the person's care notes and inform the senior or manager immediately, following the organisation's safeguarding and reporting procedures.” Another member of staff told us, “Safeguarding means protecting people from harm abuse neglect or exploitation and ensuring their safety, dignity and wellbeing.”

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff completed risk assessments with people and care plans were developed to mitigate identified risks. For example, nutrition and hydration, falls risks and skin integrity. People’s risk assessments and care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs and remained effective in helping people to keep safe.

People’s representatives told us they were happy with the way their loved ones were supported to manage identified risks. One person told us, “I don’t have any issues with the way [Name] is looked after, sometimes [Name] falls out of bed, but they have sensor mats and crash mats and they tell me if [Name] has fallen.” Another person’s representative explained, “[Name] was in a previous home and fell frequently, but now [they] have not had falls. [Name] is more encouraged to use [their] frame and [staff] know exactly where [Name] is and [Name] can walk up the corridors [independently].”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

We saw the premises were clean, safe, well maintained and meeting people's needs. People’s representatives told us, “The decorating they have done is better now.”

A new maintenance person had been employed at the service, and this person demonstrated their dedication to making sure the home and facilities were kept safe and pleasant for people living in the home.

The maintenance person told us how they regularly assessed and maintained the environment and equipment. We also saw servicing records for the fire alarm system, portable appliances, gas safety and legionella testing. Checks and audits were also carried out on slings and hoisting equipment, baths, the call bell system and regular fire drills were conducted.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Most people told us they received prompt support. We noted that senior staff regularly assessed people’s dependency levels and used this information to determine staffing levels. However, a few staff and some people’s representatives commented that they felt the home could sometimes do with more staff. A person’s representative told us, “The home seems very busy and you can wait a long time to get the door answered. When I go, staff are with the residents and working hard.” A member of staff said, “On some shifts it is really hard and stressful to get the residents what they need and deserve.”

At the time of our assessment, the rotas and our observations showed the home to be sufficiently staffed to meet people’s assessed needs.

The registered manager and operations director explained how they continually monitored staffing levels to ensure these were determined and maintained, based on the needs of individuals, as well as the needs of the home. We saw that one-to-one support was provided, where necessary, to help keep people safe. We also saw that appropriate referrals and applications were made to Continuing Healthcare (CHC) to help secure additional funding for individuals when their needs increased.

The provider had safe recruitment practices to help ensure suitable staff were employed. All necessary pre-employment checks were completed before staff began working in the home.

Staff completed regular training, to make sure they had the knowledge and skills to carry out their duties. The management team monitored the training matrix to make sure staff remained up to date. Staff also confirmed they received regular support and supervision.

People felt the staff were well trained. A person’s representative told us, “They have the right skills and are very good with those who have dementia, they are very kind if someone is agitated and staff have a very nice manner.” Another representative said, “They know how to use the equipment with regard to [Name] and they do it admirably, they calm [Name].

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service was clean and free from unpleasant odours. The provider employed dedicated domestic staff and everyone we spoke with complimented the home on its cleanliness with comments such as, “It is clean and homely and friendly.”

Staff had sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), which they wore and used appropriately. A member of staff told us, “During my shift I use PPE and if we run low on the floor there is always plenty of stock in the cupboard.” Staff completed training for infection control and regular audits were effective in identifying any areas for improvement, which were actioned promptly.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Staff completed training to understand how to handle medicines safely and managers assessed their competencies. Staff told us they were confident with managing and administering people’s medicines and knew what to do in the event of any errors. A member of staff told us, “I am very confident in administering medication. I have been trained to do this for 13 years.” Another member of staff explained what happened if there was a mistake and said, “This is reported as appropriate to the manager in the first instance, to the prescriber or to emergency services. An investigation is done and followed by feedback on supervision or retraining. The resident is made aware (or the representative) and medication is taken very seriously.”

Medicines were well organised and stored appropriately. Medicines were administered in line with relevant clinical guidance. Records and administration charts were consistent, and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safe medicine handling procedures. People’s medicines were given in line with their individual needs and preferences, and we received positive feedback about how medicines were managed. A person’s representative told us, “[Name] is supported and they wait for [Name] to take them.” Another representative told us there were regular reviews and everything was ‘good’.

The GP carried out regular medicines’ reviews with people. PRN (as required) medicine protocols were detailed. PRN medicines used to manage agitation and anxiety were not excessively used to control behaviour.