You are here

Archived: Woodlands Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

We inspected Woodlands on the 28 November 2015. Woodlands is registered to provide accommodation for three people with learning disabilities who require personal care and support.

There was not a registered manager in post at the service but a new area manager was in the process of becoming the registered manager. A service manager was in day to day control of the service. 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.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse by staff that understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. People’s needs were assessed and risks associated with their needs were mitigated through clear guidance and staff that understood and followed that guidance. People’s medicines were stored safely and people received their medicines when required.

Staff felt supported and had access to regular supervision and appraisal. There was adequate training for staff and opportunities to develop professionally.

People did not always benefit from a service that understood and applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. MCA is the legal framework that protects people’s right to make their own decisions. We have recommended the service familiarise themselves with the MCA code of practice.

People had access to appropriate health professionals which was clearly planned within people’s health action plans (HAP’s) and people also received a varied and healthy diet.

Staff were described as caring by people and their relatives. People were supported to maintain friendships with the people they lived with and other people who were important to them. People’s independence was supported and their privacy and dignity were respected. People had access to advocacy as and when required.

People benefited from a service that had a person centred culture where there was plenty of opportunities to access activities and experience new things. When people’s needs changed the service responded. People’s views were seen as important and feedback was used to improve the service.

The manager was described as very good and there were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety within the home. Staff felt the culture was open and that managers would listen to their views.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was safe

People�s needs were assessed and clear guidance was in place to manage risks.

People received their medicines when required and their medicines were stored and managed safely.

People were protected from abuse by staff that understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and systems to manage their finances.

There were enough suitably qualified staff to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was not always effective.

Staff understood the importance of choice, but the principles and the process of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always adhered to.

Staff received on-going support and guidance and had access to regular training and development programmes.

People enjoyed a healthy diet and had regular access to health professionals. This was supported by a clear health action plans that were in place.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was caring.

Staff were described as caring and this was supported by our observations.

Friendships were encouraged and supported. There were positive relationships between staff and the people they supported.

People�s independence and right to take risks were respected and encouraged.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was responsive.

There was a clear person centred culture within the home that ensured peoples wishes and preferences were obtained and supported.

When people needs changed the service responded.

There was a complaints procedure in place that people knew how to use if required. Complaints were managed swiftly and in line with the documented procedure.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 January 2016

The service was well led.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety within the home.

Staff felt the culture was open and their feedback was valued. They were aware of the whistleblowing policy should they ever need to raise concerns.

The vision within the home was shared by the manager and all the staff responsible for supporting people.