Woodland House

We found the following examples of good practice.

• Staff enabled people to lead an active social life and where it involved going out, they ensured people’s safety by following appropriate COVID-19 testing regime.

• Staff had access to plentiful supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), and all had received training in its use.

• The home was clean and fresh and daily schedules were in place to ensure hygiene and cleanliness levels were maintained by staff.

• The provider ensured they followed appropriate procedures where people needed to self-isolate. This was to ensure both, the safety of people living at the service and their wellbeing.

People’s experience of using this service:

One relative we spoke with could not speak more highly of the staff team, the approach they use and the positive impact this has had on the life of their loved one.

The relative told us, “At Woodland House we have had an amazing experience. There is a really homely environment and we take my relative out weekly. They get really lovely food. [Name of keyworker] has been amazing, the best carer my relative has ever had, really in tune with [name of relative] needs.”

The service supported people with learning disabilities and autism. This was a small home that applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include having control, choice and independence.

The provider supported people to have greatest choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff supported people to plan their schedules according to their individual needs and wishes, using their own support staff and own cars accessing a variety of opportunities daily with a flexible activity plan designed to respond to people’s mood states on the day.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

The registered manager had excellent systems and processes in place ensuring risks were very well managed and care was very personalised and reviewed.

Staffing levels, skills and experience were suitable to meet the needs of people and the registered manager had developed a culture of positive behaviour support amongst the staff team.

The provider implemented safe systems for the management of medicines which included staff training, assessments of staff competency and practiced the principles of STOMP which aims to stop the overuse of anti-psychotic medication for people with learning disabilities or mental health conditions.

The registered manager shared lessons learnt with staff and managed complaints and concerns in an open and honest way with clear evidence of actions taken and follow up.

Relatives told us they were involved and listened to in relation to their relatives care needs but no longer receive emergency calls in the night as people’s needs are managed well by the staff team.

One health professional we spoke with said in relation to involvement and joint working, “I have very valuable one to one sessions with the registered manager and the deputy manager. They are dealing with very complicated clients and the more difficult challenging behaviours that we come across from an intensive support perspective.”

Staff supported people with meals and drinks including specialised diets and to access specialised healthcare when needed.

People decorated their rooms in ways that they preferred and which met individual tastes and supported their anxieties. The provider suitably adapted the environment to meet individual needs of people including the use of communication tools and adaptations to the building itself.

The registered manager and the staff team were very clear about their roles and the impact of good care and used a very consistent approach with excellent personalised positive behaviour support which had greatly reduced incidents at the service.

The registered manager showed ways they were working with other agencies and providers to share ideas and improve services.

The service met the characteristics of Good in Safe, Effective and Caring and most of the characteristics of Outstanding in Responsive and Well-Led. For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good. (23/04/2016.) Overall, since the last inspection, the service rating has improved.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on previous rating.

Woodland House provides accommodation and personal care to up to four people with autism and learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there was one person living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe from the possible risk of harm. People’s behavioural needs had been identified and appropriate measures were in place to help staff to manage any behaviour which might have a negative impact upon others. People were treated with dignity and respect and cared for by staff who knew and understood their needs. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were involved in choosing their menus and were supported to eat a balanced and healthy diet. People’s healthcare needs were assessed and the service worked closely with other professionals to ensure that people had the correct support to maintain their health and welfare. The provider had a safe system for the management and administration of medicines

People had their care needs assessed, reviewed and detailed in comprehensive and person-centred care plans. They were supported to pursue their social interests and hobbies and to participate in activities in the service. There was a complaints policy in place to handle and resolve any complaints.

There were enough staff available to meet the needs of people using the service. All pre-employment checks were carried out by the provider to ensure that staff were recruited safely and were suitable for the post before commencing their role.

Staff had a comprehensive induction when they joined the service and received a variety of training which was relevant to their role. They showed understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLs) and sought consent from people before providing care. Staff were regularly supervised and had performance reviews from management.

The staff team were able to demonstrate ways in which they’d improved the overall quality of people’s lives in the service.

The service held residents meetings, sent satisfaction surveys and worked closely with other agencies involved in people’s care to ensure that they were satisfied with the service received. There was a robust system for quality assurance in place which identified improvements that could be made across the service. Staff were positive about the management and culture of the service and felt they were supported to develop. The systems in place for ensuring compliance and the knowledge base of the manager helped drive continual improvement in important areas.