We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodside Care Village on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Woodside Care Village, you can give feedback on this service.
Woodside Care Village is a care home providing accommodation with personal care for up to 72 people. It is a new, purpose-built home in which care is provided across three floors. People live as family units in ‘households’ of no more than seven people. Two of the households are specifically for younger deaf people. At the time of our inspection visit there were 62 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee autistic people and people with a learning disability the choices, dignity, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. Right support, right care, right culture is the statutory guidance which supports CQC to make assessments and judgements about services providing support to people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. We considered this guidance as there were people using the service who have a learning disability and or who are autistic.
There were enough staff to provide effective and safe care and staff understood their role in safeguarding people. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been identified, assessed and managed well and there was a positive approach to risk management. The provider’s checks ensured medicines management and infection control followed best practice.
People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the home to ensure staff had the appropriate skills to meet those needs. Staff received regular training to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. People’s healthcare needs were monitored, and they were referred to external healthcare professionals to ensure they remained well. People were encouraged to eat a healthy and balanced diet and their appetites and weight were monitored.
Staff were friendly and celebrated people’s individual personalities. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff understood their role in providing person centred care and had information that supported them to be responsive to people’s individual likes, dislikes and personal routines. There was detailed information about people’s individual communication needs and how staff could support them to ensure their voices were heard and their views shared.
There were two registered managers in post with specific responsibilities within the home. Both were enthusiastic and committed to providing high standards of care and supporting people to live their lives as they wished to.
The provider had systems and processes for reviewing the quality of the care provided and any issues identified were pulled into a 'home improvement plan'. The provider worked with other organisations and healthcare professionals to improve outcomes for people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 March 2016). The service was temporarily closed after that inspection for a complete rebuild and re-opened in 2019.
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection due to the significant changes within the service and the length of time since our last inspection visit.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice.
The provider had followed a risk-based approach to visiting to ensure people received the support they needed to maintain their emotional health and well-being. Visitors were given detailed information to explain what they should do to maintain the safety of people living in the home and minimise the risks of spreading or catching infections. There were a range of screening procedures visitors had to complete before entry into the home was allowed.
A member of staff had been employed to support people’s mental health and social needs when more restrictive visiting practices were in place.
Staff regularly reviewed people’s health to identify any early signs of infection. The provider had procedures to quickly escalate concerns to other healthcare professionals so any necessary action could be promptly taken.
The home was clean and uncluttered and cleaning staff had schedules they were required to complete to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned. The registered manager had introduced innovative ways to support staff understanding of the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) and good hand hygiene.
The provider updated staff every week about all issues related to COVID-19, both locally and nationally. Information for people, relatives and staff was presented in a format that made it accessible and supported understanding.
Woodside provides accommodation for people in a residential setting and is registered to provide care for up to 40 people. There were 35 people living at the home when we inspected the service. People were cared for over three floors of the home.
A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.
At our previous inspection on 26 August 2015 we found the provider was not meeting all of the required standards. We identified one breach in the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We found care and treatment was not always provided with the consent of the relevant person. We asked the provider to make improvements in this area. The provider had sent to us an action plan by the required date which stated all of the required improvements would be undertaken by the end of November 2015. During this inspection we checked improvements had been made. We found sufficient action had been taken in response to the previous breach of the regulations.
The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was restricted in accordance with DoLS and the MCA.
Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to explain the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns. All necessary checks had been completed before new staff started work at the home to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with the people who lived there.
Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, their daily routines and preferences. We found people were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely.
The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe. People were encouraged to eat a balanced diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored.
There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular meetings with their manager in which their performance and development was discussed.
Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.
People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People were able to make decisions about their environment and choose how their bedroom was decorated which made it personal to them.
People who used the service and their relatives were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run. People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. The provider acted on the feedback they received to improve their service.
Quality assurance procedures were in place to identify where the service needed to make improvements. Where issues were identified the provider acted to make the necessary changes to its service. There was a culture within the home to learn from accidents, and incidents and to continuously improve the service provided.
We carried out this inspection on 26 August 2015. The inspection was unannounced.
Woodside is registered for a maximum of 40 people offering accommodation for people who require nursing or personal care. At the time of our inspection there were 38 people living at the home. Two people were in hospital. Several people using the service were living with dementia and had high level care needs which required the support of two care workers.
A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. A registered manager was in post and had been since April 2015. This person was on annual leave at the time of our inspection.
People who were considered to lack capacity were not always supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff obtained consent from people before supporting them, however care records did not always show people had provided consent to their care.
There were processes to minimise risks to people’s safety, however care records did not always reflect people’s current care needs, so we could not be assured that all risks were being managed. Following assessment, arrangements had not always been made so that equipment was available for people’s use in order to maintain their safety, however the provider told us staff had put in safety measures to reduce the risks.
People told us they felt safe living at the home and could raise any concerns they had with staff. Staff were trained in safeguarding people and understood how to protect people from abuse.
People received their medicines in a timely way from staff trained to administer them. Overall there were enough staff to support people, however people did not always receive support at the times they preferred.
Checks were carried out prior to staff starting work to ensure their suitability to work with people who lived in the home. Staff received training which gave them the skills and understanding to support people with their health and social care needs.
People told us staff were kind and respectful and had the right skills to provide the care and support they required. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People told us they enjoyed the food at the home and had a choice of meals and drinks, which they could have at times to suit them.
People were referred to other health professionals when required, however this was not always done in a timely way. Care records contained relevant information to help staff provide people with personalised care. People were involved in their care and were asked for their views and opinions about the support they received. People told us they enjoyed the activities on offer at the home.
People told us they could raise any concerns with the registered manager, and these would be listened to and acted upon. People, relatives and staff told us the management team were approachable and responsive. The management team kept people informed of the proposed changes within the service. There were processes to understand the experiences of people who lived within the home. This was through regular communication with people and staff and a programme of other checks and audits. However, audits to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided had not identified information on care records was not always up to date, and assessments were not always completed to assess people’s abilities to make decisions.
We found a breach 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.
We saw that people and their families were involved in decisions about the care provided and details of their needs and interests were included in their care records.
Care plans and risk assessments were updated regularly to ensure people received the care they needed. There were a variety of activities designed to meet people's needs and maintain their independence. People told us they liked living at Woodside. One person told us, 'I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.'
We reviewed the way that medicines were managed and found that adequate safeguards were in place to administer people's medication.
There were adequate numbers of staff on duty and staff received appropriate support and training to enable them to care for the people who lived there. Staff told us they really liked working at Woodside and that the provider was very supportive. One person told us, 'Staff can't do enough.'
Records were stored securely and were fit for purpose. We saw that processes were in place to allow staff to access information required to deliver care. We saw that people's information was protected and that staff were supported to maintain confidentiality.
People who used the service told us they were happy with the way staff provided their care. They told us, 'The staff are very good. I wouldn't go anywhere else' and 'The food is good and family and friends can visit when they want too.'
We asked relatives about the care provided to their family member and they each told us that the care delivered to people was good. They told us, 'Everything is fine. It is warm here and clean' and 'Mom has settled in well, we have no problems.'
We saw people's bedrooms were clean, warm and well furnished. People had brought some personal items with them into the care home and this made their rooms "homely."
Staff told us they had regular training, which meant they could support the specific needs of people who used the service.
People who used the service, and their relatives, told us they had no concerns and were confident that should they report a concern it would be dealt with promptly.
We spoke with 17 people using these services and eight relatives who were visiting at the time. People told us they liked living at the care home and felt well cared for. One person told us 'we like it because staff 'speak nicely' and said staff were 'friendly' towards them. People told us they were happy with the care they received and encouraged by staff to maintain as much independence as possible. We saw people making their own drinks when they wanted to and helping with the washing up after lunch. People told us they liked doing this. Each person we spoke with told us they felt safe and would be able to talk to staff if they felt concerned about their care. Some people were not able to talk to us about their care because of their dementia, however when we asked them if they were comfortable they smiled and nodded.
We asked people about the food being served to them and they told us they enjoyed their meals and there was always a choice.
Relatives told us they had no concerns about how their family member was being cared for. They told us that care given was 'respectful' and 'nothing was to much trouble'.
Relatives we spoke with at each care home told us that staff had 'time for everybody' and the managers were very approachable. Relatives liked the way that they could be involved with the care of their family member and join in with activities if they wanted to. Relatives made particular comments about how well the staff kept them informed about their family member's care needs.
Relatives told us the food looked good and people always had sufficient to eat and drink. They told us that snacks and drinks were always 'available' and they could make a cup of tea for their family member whenever they visited.