You are here

Archived: Woodlands Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 28 November 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 14 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw that people were offered choices and controlled their daily life as much as possible. One person described some of the choices they made. People had individualised plans of care that met their specific needs. The plans of care were reviewed regularly. People said, ��I go to my review and tell them everything��. The home worked with other professionals to keep people as healthy as possible.

Care staff helped people to take their medication safely.

The house was clean, hygienic and provided people with a comfortable home.

Staff were appropriately trained and supported to enable them to provide care for the people who lived in the home. Staff told us that they that they were well supported to look after the people in their care and that ��residents needs take precedence over everything else��. People told us that staff were, ��great and they make me laugh��.

The home had ways of making sure that they looked at the quality of care they were providing. They listened to people who used the service and took into account their views.

Inspection carried out on 12 March 2013

During a routine inspection

We met all three of the people who used the service although one of them was out for most of the time we were there. Due to their communication needs it was not possible to have in-depth conversations although all three indicated that they were happy at the service. One said they liked to live there and that they liked the staff. They said they could tell the staff if they were not happy about anything. We observed staff supporting the people and also one person having lunch. We saw evidence of person centred planning and service delivery and much of the information for the people who used the service was in picture form.

There was evidence of the use of best interest processes and the engagement of family members and health professionals. There was a comprehensive system for planning services and supporting people including guidelines and records of activities and events.

There was a small and stable staff team, most of whom had worked at the service for some time and knew the people well. The staff we spoke to were all very positive about the service and demonstrated that they were knowledgeable, including awareness of safeguarding for which there was a local procedure and information available. All of the staff had appropriate qualifications.

The provider had systems for monitoring the quality of service including weekly audits by the registered manager and quarterly monitoring by the area manager as well as external monitoring by the local authority.