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

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 16 May 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

The provider had an admissions policy. The policy clearly stated that nobody would be declined admission on the basis of their origin, religious beliefs or cultural background. The policy also stated people had a right to independence, choice and fulfilment. The staff we spoke with understood the admissions policy and this was reflected in the ongoing reassessment of the records of people who used the service.

Most of the people who used the service had their own bedroom however two of the bedrooms were used to accommodate couples or people who wished to share a room with another person. We spoke with a person who used the service who shared a bedroom and they told us that it had greatly improved their quality of life because they could share a room with a person they liked.

The people who used the service had limited mobility, memory loss or a diagnosis of dementia. Some people had advanced dementia and so were not able to talk with us. Therefore we observed how the staff interacted with people using the service to determine if they were involving people in the decisions about their care and treatment. We found that people expressed their views and were involved in decisions about their care and treatment because they told us that they felt respected and involved in decisions about their care. People told us that the provider respected their wishes and involved them in all aspects of their care and support.

Through a process called pathway tracking we looked at the care records of four people who used the service. In the care records we looked at we saw people had been involved in their care plan and assessments. Each person had a profile of their life on their file that detailed specific wishes and preferences about their care. Where people had not been able to verbalise their wishes representatives had been consulted and their views had been taken into account. We also saw people using the service or their representative had signed a consent form giving the provider consent to hold and to share their information with relevant professionals. This meant the provider could routinely discuss concerns about the people they cared for.

In the four care plans and assessments we looked at we saw people who used the service had been supported to make as many choices as possible about their personal care, choice of clothing and activities they wished to engage in. For people with sensory impairment there was a sign in their bedroom reminding staff to use visual aids to communicate with the person. The deputy general manager gave an example where bespoke training had been given to staff to better understand the needs of one person who had a personality disorder who needed specific communication methods to be adopted.

We spoke with members of staff who explained the importance of offering choice to people and involving them in all aspects of their daily life. Staff also explained how they had received training in communicating with people who had dementia to ensure people were communicated with appropriately. The five members of staff we spoke with were able to talk to us about how they engaged with the people they supported and the importance of talking to people calmly as to determine what the person wanted.

All of the staff had received equality and diversity training and were able to explain how they respected each person for their individuality, skills and abilities. We observed the staff asking people what food they wanted to eat at breakfast and lunchtime. We observed staff making changes to what people had planned to eat because they had changed their mind. We also observed staff giving time for people to express their views and wishes. For example, some people regularly wandered around the home and care staff would ask them where they wanted to go and if they needed any support. This meant that people’s diversity, values and human rights were respected.

We spoke with five people who used the service who told us