Wood Close

Updated 26 April 2018

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.

Before the inspection we looked at all the information we had about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about significant events which the service is required to send us by law. In addition, we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asked the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service did well and improvements they planned to make.

We visited the home on 29 March 2018. Our inspection was unannounced and carried out by one inspector.

During our visit we spoke with two people using the service although they were not always able to respond to our questions verbally. We gathered information about people’s views and experiences in other ways including observing people and their interactions with staff. We also phoned two relatives and spoke with them. We spoke with the manager and two staff. We looked at care records for three people, staff files for three staff members, medicines records for two people and other records relating to the running of the service.

After the inspection we contacted six health and social care professionals to gather their feedback although we did not receive any responses.

Updated 26 April 2018

Wood Close is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal support for up to six adults with learning disabilities. There were five people using the service at the time of our inspection.

When we last visited the home on 29 October 2015 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated Good overall and in all five key questions. At this inspection we found the service continued to be Good.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and neglect and staff received training in safeguarding to understand their responsibilities.

Risks relating to people’s care were assessed and managed safely. The premises were well maintained and met people’s support needs. Suitable infection control processes were in place.

Staff were recruited through processes to check they were suitable to care for people. There were enough staff to care for people safely.

People were supported to maintain their health and in relation to eating and drinking by staff. People’s medicines were managed safely. People were supported by staff on admission to hospital.

People were supported by staff who received training and support to understand their roles and responsibilities.

People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the provider applied for and followed authorisations to deprive people of their liberty as part of keeping them safe appropriately. People’s needs and choices were assessed and people and relatives were involved in the process.

Staff understood people and cared for them with kindness. Staff understood the best ways to communicate with people. People were treated with dignity and respect. People were supported to maintain their independent living skills.

People’s care plans were person-centred and contained sufficient information for staff to follow in caring for people. People were supported to do activities they were interested in and to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.

A suitable complaints process was in place and the provider responded appropriately to concerns or complaints.

Although there was no registered manager in post a manager had been in post for five months and was in the process of registering with the CQC. The manager had a good understanding of their role and responsibilities, as did staff. Leadership was visible in the service.

The provider had quality assurance systems with a range of audits in place. The provider encouraged open communication with people, relatives and staff. The provider carried out formal observations to find out the experiences of people who were non-verbal and to check staff provided care in the best ways.