Archived: Woodlands Care Home

The provider of Woodlands Care Home is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to nine people. Care and support is provided to people with learning disabilities or with autism. At the time of this inspection seven people lived at the home with one of these people spending a short time at the home known as respite care.

A registered manager was 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 described to us they felt safe and staff treated them well. Staff knew how to identify harm and abuse and how to act to protect people from the risk of harm which included the signs which may confirm someone is being abused. The provider had arrangements in place to show there were sufficient staff with the right skills to meet people’s needs with risks to their safety reduced.

Staff told us their training was up to date. All the staff felt their training and one to one meetings supported and enabled them to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. We saw staff understood people’s care and support needs. This helped people to achieve their chosen lifestyles and retain their levels of independence as people were supported to take positive risks so they could achieve their goals.

We saw staff supported people to remain healthy and well. People received their medicines at the right time and in the right way to promote good health. Everyone had a health action plan which supported them in planning, monitoring and reviewing their health care needs. Staff monitored people’s health and shared information effectively to make sure people received advice from external professionals, such as, doctors and dieticians according to their needs. People liked their food which they had chosen and were involved in planning their meals and the times they preferred to eat these.

People were asked for their permission before staff provided care and support so that people were able to consent to their care. Where people were unable to consent to their care because they did not have the mental capacity to do this decisions were made in their best interests. Staff practices meant that people received care and support in the least restrictive way to meet their needs. The registered manager had considered where people may be restricted and had completed applications under the Deprivation of Liberty to make sure any restrictions to people’s liberty were lawfully applied.

People were satisfied staff cared for and supported them in the way they wanted. We saw staff were attentive and caring towards people. Staff used people’s preferred communication to ensure their individual choices were fully respected. Staff knew people well and how best to support them. Staff respected people’s dignity and privacy while they supported people with their needs.

People’s care plans described their needs and abilities and were in easy read formats so that people could be involved in their care planning. Staff were responsive to changes in people’s needs and supported people to follow their own interests.

Staff enjoyed their work and were guided by a registered manager who wanted to ensure staff were motivated to be the best they could be in their work. Staff and people who lived at the home were involved in sharing issues and ideas to make improvements to the garden and home environment. Staff spoke about people who they supported with fondness and there was a shared sense they were all one big family. This was also shared by people who lived at the home.

The registered manager and provider had responsive systems in place to monitor and review people’s experiences and complaints to ensure improvements were made where necessary. The provider visited the home and this gave the registered manager opportunities of discussing plans for further improvements. This also gave the provider the chance to check how well run the services people received were which included the standard of care people received. The registered manager and provider used their quality checking systems to enable improvements to be sought. This helped to support continued improvements so that people received a good quality service at all times.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people who lived there and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us that they felt they were safe and their needs were met by staff that knew them. One staff member also told us that they felt people were safe and their needs were met.

Following our last inspection we found that improvements had been made to how risks were managed. Increased staffing meant that any risks could be managed more effectively. For example the provider had reviewed how they recorded risks and assessed risk. Staff told us that they felt this had improved the levels of care and time that could be given to the people that lived there.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found that DoLS for some people had been reviewed and there were proper policies and procedures in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

We checked the medicines of people who used the service. We found that medicines were stored and administered safely.

Is the service effective?

We observed that people received appropriate care to meet their physical needs and maintain their comfort. All the staff we spoke with told us about the individual needs of the people that used the service. At the last inspection it was found that at times people were at risks of falls and injuries. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. The provider had made the necessary changes to make sure that risks to people were assessed and addressed. For example the provider had repaired areas of flooring that had been identified as a possible trip hazard.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff were kind and polite. We found that staff treated the people who used the service with dignity and respect. All the staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people's individual likes and dislikes. People's wishes had been respected. For example, we saw where one person indicated what they wanted to have their food in a particular area of the home. We saw that staff respected this.

Is the service responsive?

We found that the care records showed that people that used the service saw other professionals including doctors when their health needs changed. The provider had acted appropriately to guidance from other professionals when people's needs changed. People told us that they felt if their health needs changed the staff were always quick to respond and contacted other professionals. For example one person told us about how a doctor was contacted when they were unwell.

At our last inspection we found that there was not an effective system in place to ensure that risks were identified and actioned appropriately. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. There were now further checks by the registered manager and clear actions had been taken when risks or improvements had been identified.

We found that there was a complaints system in place that ensured that people were listened to. We found that following any concerns or complaints the provider had taken action to ensure that complaints were resolved appropriately.

Is the service well led?

At our last inspection the provider did not have any systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service. For example, it was not clear how actions for improvements were monitored to ensure that action had been taken within an appropriate period of time. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made. Regular audits and clear action plans showed that the provider had taken steps to ensure that the quality of the service was constantly monitored and improved.

We found that staff felt that the management of the home was positive, and staff told us that they felt supported in their roles.

We spoke with some people when we could, and also with their relatives, visitors to the home and staff. We spent time in communal areas and observed interactions between staff and people who lived at the home.

People who lived at the home had good relationships with staff and staff appeared to know and understand their individual needs. People were encouraged to lead independent lives.

Individual needs had been assessed and care plans had been written but risks to people had not always been recorded and acted upon. People who lived at the home had access to medical and social care professionals including social workers.

People told us that they felt it was a safe place live. Staff understood their role in protecting vulnerable adults and what to do if they suspected abuse.

Communal and shared areas had not been maintained and in some places were not always suitable for people who lived at the home. Staff felt that they had not been supported by the providers to maintain the home.

Sufficiently trained numbers of staff were on duty to care for people.

The provider had not checked the quality of all of the services provided at the home. Complaints had not always been recorded and investigated in line with the provider's procedures.

A relative who had visited the home for many years told us that they had no worries about the care of people who used the service. They said that they felt people who used the service were kept safe from the risk of harm. They described the service as, 'Perfect'.

Staff employed at the service had received appropriate training to enable them to meet people's needs and were supported by senior staff.

There were arrangements for monitoring the quality of the service and people who used the service were encouraged to provide feedback about the place where they lived.