You are here

Archived: Woodland Court Residential Home

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 16 May 2014
Date of Publication: 19 June 2014
Inspection Report published 19 June 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 16 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who lived at Woodland Court Care Home. We spoke with the deputy general manager, duty home manager, three members of staff and a district nurse. We spoke with representatives of people who used the service. We were unable to ask all of the people their experience of the service because they had limited ability to communicate with us.

At our inspection we observed how staff delivered care and treatment and how they communicated with people who used the service. We looked at people�s assessments and support plans and their daily records.

We also used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe

We found the service safe because the provider had a policies and procedures that explained how to identify and report safeguarding concerns and we evidenced that staff were following the procedures. We spoke to people who used the service and they told us that they felt safe living at Woodland Court Care Home. Representatives of people who used the service told us that they knew how to raise concerns and felt they would be taken seriously.

The provider showed us safeguarding concerns they had identified for people who used the service and the referrals they had made to the local authority safeguarding team.

The care records we saw all contained an assessment of people's capacity in respect of the care and treatment they would agree to. We saw support plans that contained a risk assessment for each person. The risk assessments we looked at had been reviewed and were up to date. People who used the service told us that they were respected. One person told us that the staff respected their wishes and always asked them how they would like their care delivered.

At our inspection we spent time observing the staff and their interactions with people who used the service and saw them talking calmly and sensitively to the people they cared for. We also observed staff offering choice to people and control over their care. A person who used the service told us �I have plenty of choice over what I want to do, my carer respects my independence�.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had recognised a deprivation of a person�s liberty and had made an application to the local authority. We looked at the application and saw that the provider had consulted relevant professionals to discuss any changes that may have been needed to the care and support plan.

The provider had a service risk policy. The policy outlined actions that needed to be taken in specific situations; for example, flood, fire, missing person and staff shortages. There were emergency plans in place for people who used the service. We looked at training records for staff and saw that they had received training on the policy and understood what to do in an emergency.

Is the service effective

The service was effective because people told us that they were happy with the quality of service that they received. People also told us they felt their needs were being met. Representatives of people who used the service told us their relative�s care was being well met and that their relative was content and happy.

We saw care plans were regularly reviewed and this included discussions with people�s representatives, general practitioners, district nurse and community psychiatric nurse. The care plans included information about people's health conditions, wishes and preferences and advanced wishes.

We saw from the care records we looked at people were given choices about what activities they liked or disliked what they preferred to take part in. A representative of a person who used the service told us their relative enjoyed the activities and family and friends were invited to attend the activities with their loved ones. One representative told us �the range of activities on offer keeps people active�.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and this included going out and being part of their community. The people who used the service were also encouraged to undertake as much of their personal care as they could. People who used the service told us the care they received was appropriate and met their individual needs. Representatives of people who used the service told us the provider was maintaining a good quality of life for their relatives.

Is the service caring

The service was caring because people received care and treatment from people who were patient and attentive. We observed staff giving people one to one attention and giving them the time to make choices about their care. A representative of a person who used the service told us �many of the people at the home are confused and become easily upset, staff identify this and give people the time they need to discuss their feelings�.

A person who used the service told us �the staff are very good, I am always asked what care I would like them to undertake and what I would like to do for myself�. Another person told us �I sometimes like to go out to buy my own clothes and when I ask staff to help me do this, they do help me�.

Is the service responsive

The service is responsive because people receive a pre admission assessment and this was followed up with a further assessment within seven days to assess whether a person�s needs had changed. Each person who used the service also had their individual support plan reviewed every month. In the records we looked at we saw that support plans reflected people�s individual needs and had been updated monthly.

We saw the provider had a complaints policy and information was available in communal areas that explained how people who used the service and visitors could make a complaint. We spoke with people who used the service and they told us they knew how to make a complaint and it would be taken seriously. A representative of a person who used the service told us they were reminded of the complaints policy at residents and families meetings.

We spoke with people who used the service and they told us the quality of care they received was good. People also told us they knew how to comment and offer suggestions and that their views on the service were welcomed by the provider.

Is the service well led

The service was well led because the provider had a consistent system for ongoing monitoring of the service provided at Woodlands Care Home. The outcome of audits and actions required to improve the service were discussed with staff in team meetings. The staff we spoke with talked to us about the outcome of audits and actions assigned to individual staff needed to improve the quality of service delivered to people who used the service.

The provider supported staff to undertake national qualifications. Staff induction and ongoing training was provided and staff had regular supervision.

On the day of our inspection the service did not have a registered manager in post. However a deputy manager was present who provided additional management support to staff. We found the management arrangements in place did provide strong leadership and an open positive culture. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and were supported well by their manager. We were told by that they were in the process of recruiting to the registered manager�s post.