Woodside View is a nursing home for up to 26 people including people who live with dementia, physical needs and mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people living at the home. The service was run by a registered manager. The registered manager was off sick on the day of our inspection. However there was an interim manager present to cover ‘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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Some people’s human rights were affected as the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was not always followed. Where people lacked capacity to make some decisions, people did not always have a mental capacity assessment or best interest meeting. Staff were heard to ask people for their permission before they provided care.
Where people’s liberty was needed to be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and sent of the appropriate referrals to the local authority to ensure the person’s rights were protected.
The service was not always well led. There were not robust systems in place to monitor, review and improve the quality of care for people in the home and some recording keeping was inconsistent.
People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant records that were accurate. However, people did not have guidelines in place to tell staff when and how to administer as required medicines (PRN). We recommend that for people who are prescribed PRN medicines, guidelines are put in place to enable staff to know when and how to administer in line with current guidance.
Staff did not always have written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Some risk assessments were completed, however they did not contain relevant detail to advise staff how to manage risks. We recommend that the registered manager reviews people’s risk assessments to ensure that current and detailed information is documented line with current guidance.
People were protected from avoidable harm. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.
There were systems in place to ensure that staff employed were recruited safely. However one person did not have a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check in place. Which meant that the staff member may have been unsuitable to work in the home.
There were enough staff to meet the needs of people.
Some people did not always receive responsive care. For some staff, English was not their first language and sometimes people said they found it difficult to make their needs and wishes known and to be understood by some staff. We recommend that the provider ensures that all staff are able to communicate effectively with people to ensure that people’s needs are met.
The registered manager had some systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of care in the home, however they was not regular and there were no action plans in place. We recommend that the registered manager review its quality assurance process to ensure that there is a continuous system in place to monitor, review and drive improvements in care.
People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were seen to be offered choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.
Staff received training and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people’s needs. Staff did not always receive regular supervision to support them in their role. However the provider told us that this was being re-introduced at the end of July.
Positive and caring relationships had been established. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner. Relatives were involved in planning peoples care, where necessary. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People told us they enjoyed the activities and there was a range of activities on offer. A complaints procedure was in place; the registered manager had responded to and implemented actions to resolve people’s complaints.
There was an open and honest culture in the home. People and relatives told us they felt that the management was approachable. Staff told us they felt supported by the registered manager and that they had regular team meetings.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.