You are here

Archived: Wood Hill House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 July 2018

We carried out this inspection on 31 January 2018. The inspection was unannounced. This meant no-one at the service knew we were planning to visit.

Wood Hill House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Wood Hill House is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and treatment of disease, disorder and injury. The service is a detached property within its own grounds and can accommodate a maximum of 83 people. There are a total of five floors, including a ground and lower ground floor. The service was organised into six units; Longley 1, Longley 2, Devonshire, Endcliffe, Weston and Richmond. At the time of the inspection there were 67 people living at the home.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 spoken with were very positive about their experience of living at Wood Hill House. They told us they were happy, felt safe and were respected.

We identified improvements were needed to the design, adaptation and decoration of the service to make it more stimulating for people living with dementia.

The service provided a programme of activities to suit people’s preferences. People spoken with gave mixed feedback about the quality of activities provided.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs. We saw staff responded in a timely way when people required assistance. We spent time observing lunch on each unit and saw that there was a relaxed and calm atmosphere on all units. Devonshire unit differed slightly; we observed less social interaction taking place and staff appeared more rushed when serving food.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely so their health needs were met. Medicine protocols were in place to guide staff when to administer medicines prescribed on an ‘as and when’ basis to meet people’s health needs.

Staff recruitment procedures were in place. The registered provider ensured pre-employment checks were carried out prior to new staff commencing employment to make sure they were safe to employ.

Staff were provided with relevant training, which gave them the skills they needed to undertake their role. Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and they were involved in decisions about their care. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted. Staff understood how to support people in a sensitive way.

People’s care records contained detailed information and reflected the care and support being given.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the registered provider’s policies and systems supported this practice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 July 2018

The service remains Good.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 July 2018

The service remains Good.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 July 2018

The service remains Good.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 3 July 2018

People and relatives spoken with gave mixed feedback about the quality of activities provided at the service. We observed the quality of activities on each unit was not always consistent.

People�s care plans contained a range of information and had been reviewed to keep them up to date.

People living at the home, and their relatives, were confident in reporting concerns to the manager and felt they would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 July 2018

The service remains Good.