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 get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

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

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

We found people experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. We spoke with people who used the service about the care they received. We also observed how staff interacted and delivered care and support. We spoke with the representatives of people who used the service and asked them about the care and welfare of their relative. We also spoke with a visiting district nurse. We looked at the care records of four people who used the service and looked at daily recordings of peoples care and support.

In the records we looked at we saw each person had an individual file containing their needs assessment, care plan, risk assessment and daily contact sheet. There was a photograph of the person on the front cover of the file and an ‘at a glance’ profile of the person’s care and support needs. This meant that staff could easily summarise the needs of a person in an emergency.

In the records we looked at we saw there was a needs assessment on each person’s care records. We saw people, their representatives and relevant professionals had been involved in developing the assessment. Prior to admission a pre assessment was undertaken and this was followed up within seven days to assess whether people’s needs had changed. Each person who used the service also had a dependency level assessment which assessed mobility, personal care, feeding and continence.

Care plans had been completed on all of the records we looked at and they had been reviewed and updated monthly. Support plans included communication needs, lifestyle, personal care needs, pain and medication management and end of life care wishes. Specific restrictions under the Mental Health Act and guardianship were clearly recorded on the records we looked at. We spoke with care staff who told us that they were involved and contributed to the review of the care plan. Staff also told us that they talked to people who used the service about the review of their care. In the records we looked at we saw that people’s representatives had also been involved in the review of care plans. People’s representatives told us that this gave them reassurance that their relative’s welfare was being regularly re-assessed.

The deputy general manager showed us evidence that the quality of care planning was audited within monthly inspections that they undertook. The audit included an assessment of the quality of the support plan and whether it has reviewed. Also audited monthly was safeguarding alerts, dementia care needs and person centred planning. We spoke with a representative of a person who used the service and they told us that the care plan for their relative met their needs.

At our inspection we spoke with a district nurse who was visiting people who used the service. They told us that they had been involved in the assessment and review of people’s care. We also saw evidence that the person’s social worker had been involved in reviews as had the person’s doctor. Any decisions taken in the best interests of a person who used the service was assessed and risks to the person identified. Significant decisions about medication and treatment were assessed with the person’s representative as they arose and were made for specific situations.