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 protected from abuse and staff should respect their human rights (outcome 7)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are protected from abuse, or the risk of abuse, and their human rights are respected and upheld.

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 who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse because risks were regularly assessed within their care and support plan. We spoke to people who used the service and they told us that they felt safe at Woodland Court Care Home. One person told us “I could tell anyone of the carers or the manager if someone was disrespectful or hurt me”. Another person told us that they were treated with dignity. We spoke with a representative of a person using the service and they told us that they had no safeguarding concerns but would know how to report concerns if they occured.

The provider had an up to date safeguarding policy and procedure. The policy outlined the types of abuse that could occur and how to report safeguarding concerns. The policy set out the responsibilities of staff to report any safeguarding concerns they had for people who used the service. Training for staff on the policy formed part of the mandatory induction training and refresher training was delivered every six months by the deputy general manager.

The deputy area manager told us that there was a variety of policies that staff had training on that supported prevention of harm to people who used the service. They included prevention of pressure sores, managing the care of people with dementia and a missing person’s policy.

We spoke with staff who were able to identify different forms of abuse and how they should be responded to. A member of staff told us “We are told in our training that safeguarding is central to everything that we do”. Another member of staff said “Many of the people who live here would not be able to tell us if they had been abused and so we have to be vigilant and watch for signs of harm”. We found that the staff were able to explain how to escalate concerns if they felt their manager was not taking their concerns seriously. We looked at the staff training records and evidenced that all staff had up to date training in safeguarding. This meant that staff knew how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.

The provider had a policy on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider had made an application to the local authority to deprive a person of their liberty. We pathway tracked the application and saw all necessary steps had been taken to minimise the need for restriction of the person’s liberty. We evidenced that the provider had consulted professionals including the person’s doctor and community psychiatric nurse. The person’s social worker had also been consulted and asked to reassess the person to determine if the care arrangements in place needed to be changed.

The provider had sent a safeguarding concern to the local authority since their last inspection. We looked at the alert and saw that it had been made appropriately. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had also received a statutory notification. All necessary steps had been taken by the provider to minimise the risk of harm and relevant professionals had been consulted including the person’s doctor and a district nurse. We spoke with the district nurse who had been consulted and they told us that they were satisfied with the provider’s actions in response to identifying the concern.

People who used the service or their representative had asked the provider to maintain people’s money in a safe place. We looked at how people’s money was stored and saw it was placed in a secure safe. Each person’s money was secured in a separate envelope and two staff signed an inventory when money was removed. The provider may wish to note that we could not evidence an audit trail for this.

We spoke with representatives of people who used the service and they told us that they had been involved in their relatives risk assessment. Representatives told us that the provider consulted them if new risks were identified. One representative told us that the provider took safeguarding of the people who used the service seriousl