Archived: Woodland View

Updated 11 August 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We inspected Woodland View on 29 June 2017. We informed the provider the day before our inspection. We did this because the service is a small care home and people who use the service are often out and we needed to be sure somebody was in. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We did not ask the provider to complete a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We sat in communal areas and observed how staff interacted with people. We spent time with all the people who used the service. Communication with people was limited because of their learning disability so we spoke with two friends and three relatives of people who used the service to gain their views and opinions.

The manager was not present on the day of the inspection. During the inspection we spoke with two support co-ordinators, a senior support worker and two support workers. The manager sent us information by e-mail after our inspection in response to our inspection findings.

During the inspection we reviewed a range of records. These included two people’s care records, including care planning documentation and medicine records. We also looked at three staff files, including staff recruitment and training records, records relating to the management of the home and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the provider.

Updated 11 August 2017

We inspected Woodland View on 29 June 2017. We informed the provider the day before our inspection. We did this because the service is a small care home and people who use the service are often out and we needed to be sure somebody was in. Woodland View is an established service, which had been previously registered under a different provider. This is a first inspection of a newly registered service.

The home had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was not present for our inspection.

Woodland View is a six bedroomed purpose-built bungalow providing personal care for adults with learning disabilities. The home does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection six people were using the service.

There were systems and processes in place for the safe management of medicines. Staff were trained and had their competency to administer medicines checked on a regular basis. Medicine administration records (MAR’s) were completed correctly with no gaps or anomalies.

We asked what information was available to support staff handling medicines to be given ‘as required’. Although as required medicines were documented on the MAR there wasn’t a separate protocol that provided staff with the additional guidance needed to support the administration of these medicines. In addition the temperature of the room in which medicines were stored was not taken and recorded to ensure that medicines were stored within the recommended temperature ranges. The manager contacted us after the inspection and informed us they had taken immediate action to address our findings.

Staff understood the procedure they needed to follow if they suspected abuse might be taking place. Risks to people were identified and plans were put in place to help manage the risk and minimise them occurring. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems had taken place to ensure health and safety was maintained.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of people who used the service. Staff were available to provide one to one support and with visits out in the community. We found that safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff told us they felt well supported and received regular supervision and an annual appraisal.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted in the best interests of people they supported. Staff clearly understood their role in supporting people with communication to help them make as many of their own decisions as possible. Staff told us about people’s care preferences, which were also recorded in their care plans. However, at the time of the inspection, processes had not been followed to formally record this. Information was supplied to us after the inspection to confirm that this process had commenced. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

The majority of staff were up to date with their training and any gaps in training had been identified and addressed by the manager.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink, which helped to ensure that their nutritional needs were met. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services.

There were positive interactions between people and staff. We saw staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were kind, caring and interacted well with people. Observation of the staff showed that they knew the people very well and could anticipate their needs.

Activities, outings and social occasions were organised for people who used the service.

Care plans detailed people’s needs and preferences and were personalised . Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis to ensure they contained up to date information to meet people’s care needs. The service had a clear process for handling complaints.

Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service and felt supported by the manager. Quality assurance processes were in place and regularly carried out by the manager and support co-ordinator to monitor and improve the quality of the service.