Archived: Woden Resource Centre

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the staff supporting them and from looking at records. We spoke with seven people, two staff and the manager. We looked at three people's care records.

There were 14 people staying at the service at the time of our inspection.

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

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and comfortable staying at the service.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as complaints. This helped the service to improve.

No applications for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been submitted by the service, but staff showed good knowledge about how they should protect people's rights. We found that they were applying these principles to the support of a person who was being cared for in their own room due to the risk of the spread of infection.

There were enough skilled and experienced staff to support people safely. Records showed that management addressed issues through appropriate disciplinary procedures with staff, when required.

Is the service effective?

People told us that the care they were provided with helped them to improve and work towards their rehabilitation with issues such as mobility. Although some care records lacked the required information, we saw staff providing people with the care people told us they needed. People told us that, in conjunction with therapy staff employed by the local NHS trust, staff assisted them with exercises to help them. This meant that staff, in cooperation with rehabilitation professionals, helped people towards their goals, including improved independence.

Is the service caring?

We observed staff interacting with people and saw that these interactions were positive, patient and caring. People told us that staff helped them improve and were kind and caring. One person told us, 'Staff help me to move. They're great'.

Is the service responsive?

We found that staff responded to people's choices and respected these. One person told us, 'I can sit up late with staff; as late as I want'.

Although no recent complaints were recorded, people told us they would feel confident to speak to staff or the manager if they had an issue. Guidance on how people could make a complaint, and outside organisations they could approach for support, was advertised. People we spoke with told us they had never had cause to raise a complaint.

We saw that the management was leading on a project to evaluate what was good and what needed further development within the service. This was being carried out in a structured way to ensure a consistent approach to this evaluation. The manager explained an action plan would be created as a result of this project.

Is the service well-led?

The service was led by a registered manager, who was present at the time of our inspection. They assisted us in obtaining the information we required during our visit.

We saw evidence of the service cooperating with others, such as the Infection Prevention and Control team, to promote people's safety. This meant that staff took into consideration external professional advice in order to promote people's health and wellbeing.

We found that the service was carrying out audits, including the auditing of care records. We did find some gaps in records, but there had been improvements in these since our last inspection. We saw that the manager was taking steps to further improve care records.

People we spoke with told us they received support which met their needs. One person said, 'It's perfect'.

People were given adequate food and drink, which supported their health needs. One person told us, 'Loads of food. More than I would normally eat'.

We found that staff were skilled and experienced in caring for people. This meant that staff knew how to care for people safely.

We found that some care records were not updated with people's latest care needs and contained poor levels of information about people. This meant that there was a risk people would not receive care that meet their needs.

We found that people were supported in making day to day decisions about the care they received. People's values and diversity were respected and promoted.

The care people received was reflected in their care plans. Some aspects of care were duplicated across different people's care plans, which made them less individualised. One person told us that staff gave them, 'Lots of help'.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from harm. Staff needed updated safeguarding training . People said that they felt safe living at the service.

We found that staff were recruited in a safe way and that checks were carried out to ensure their suitability to care for people. One person told us, 'Staff are nice, they look after you well'.

The service had a clear complaints procedure which was accessible to people. The centre advertised the complaints procedure so people would know how to make a complaint.