Woodside

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Relatives told us they felt reassured by the practices within the service in terms of safety and management of accidents.Accidents, incidents and events were recorded. The registered manager was informed of each incident and undertook reviews to identify trends. The registered manager had oversight and took action to prevent recurrence. Lessons learnt were shared in team meetings, supervisions and where appropriate, with people and their relatives. A staff member said, “In team meetings we discuss things that have happened or what we have experienced, it is a very open and honest conversation.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Relatives told us they felt confident their family members’ needs would be met by staff and information would be shared with external health and social care professionals to ensure their care was the best it could be. The service had ensured there was adequate information about people, this was in forms of grab files, communication passports and hospital passports. Relatives were involved in decisions and their views were valued. The registered manager and staff worked closely with people's health and social care professionals to ensure they received the care and support they needed. A health and social care professional told us, “The staff will seek support when the person requires it and the service always has the information, care plans and risk assessments etc. ready. They are an easy team to work with as I know they will follow care plans. The service will alert me if there are any concerns or changes.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.Relatives told us they felt their family member was safe living at the service. We observed staff worked in agreed ways to promote safety. For example when supporting with specific health needs and moving and positioning. People appeared happy and comfortable in the company of staff. Safeguarding processes and practices upheld people's human rights, protecting them from discrimination and abuse. Staff, including managers, had received safeguarding training and staff confirmed they knew how to raise a concern. A staff member said, “If I had a concern I can always speak to management. I can also report concern to the local authority safeguarding team.” A health and social care professional told us, “Staff appear knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures and demonstrate respectful interactions with the people at all times.” People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We reviewed whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty. The registered manager understood the operation of DoLS. The provider had identified people who were deprived of their liberty and had applied to the relevant local authority to authorise this. Staff and managers had training about the operation of Deprivation of Liberties.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Relatives told us they felt their family members were safe, and risks to their wellbeing were considered and managed. Staff worked to keep people safe and understood their needs.A staff member said, “I really feel we have more than enough information about people. We have families, staff have worked with people for years, the management team know people well, we have supportive input from professionals and the care plans contain a wealth of information. There is nothing that I would not be able to find in a care plan and risk assessment.” Risk assessments where in place for people’s individual specific needs, these were regularly reviewed by the management team of the service and were proportionate. People's care and support plans were consistent with their risk assessments.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.Relatives were complimentary about the service, describing it as homely and were happy with the service in terms of decoration and condition of it. The service was accessible. A relative said, “They take good care of the home, it has a redecoration and repaint every single year. They take pride in making it a home.” The service had up to date Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEP). These were kept within the person’s individual grab folder. PEEPs provide staff and emergency service personnel with critical information on the evacuation needs of each person in the event of an emergency. The provider used external contractors to service the fire system and undertake some checks, including in relation to gas, legionella and electrical safety. Staff were able to report maintenance concerns to a maintenance team. A staff member told us, “We are able to report maintenance issues straight away and the issues are always completed quickly.”

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs. The provider considered people’s needs and dependency to calculate staffing levels.Staff were there when people needed them, there were enough staff on duty. Staff had regular supervisions and attended team meetings. Staff told us they felt part of a team. Training records confirmed staff completed training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Staff received additional training relevant to their roles and the needs of people living at Woodside, this included nationally recognised qualifications, such as level 3 qualifications in health and social care.We observed staff supporting people in a person-centred way, for example when supporting them with activities. Staff worked in an organised, calm way. Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure checks were carried out on staff before they commenced their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. A health and social care professional said, “In my opinion, the staff working at Woodside are skilled, competent and experienced in supporting residents with a range of needs”.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.Relatives told us the service was clean and tidy, this included people’s own bedrooms and communal areas.A relative said, “The home is always spotless.” We observed the service to be clean. Staff carried out cleaning duties during the inspection. The service had cleaning schedules in place. Staff had access to the personal protective equipment (PPE) they needed and used PPE appropriately. Staff received training about infection prevention and control.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened.People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were given in a safe way, and this included if they needed any medicines prescribed to be given ‘when required’.Staff had received training to administer medicines. Policies and procedures were in place for staff to follow to support the safe administration of medicines. The registered manager confirmed people were supported to attend their annual medicines reviews. Medicines were stored in accordance with pharmacy guidance and infection control guidelines. Medicines were well managed and organised. There were suitable arrangements for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Daily checks were carried out to ensure medicine errors were identified and addressed promptly. Medicine paperwork was clear, well organised and available to staff.