We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodland Vale 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 Woodland Vale, you can give feedback on this service.
personal care. The service is purpose built and divided into two units all on the ground floor. All bedrooms are single occupancy and there is a variety of communal spaces including conservatory which can be accessed from an external door and was being used for family visits.
We found the following examples of good practice.
•All visitors to the service were only allowed to enter if they had arranged their visit and followed the services guidelines and protocols. This included signing a health declaration, providing their contact details and having their temperature checked.
•Everyone entering the building were to asked to wash their hands and then put on appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
•Staff were diligent about ensuring good infection control regimes were maintained. They had regular updated training and supported each other to embed this into their every day practice.
•Cleaning regimes were detailed and included ensuring all areas were clean, clutter free and areas of high use such as door handles were wiped clean more than twice daily.
•People had been enabled to stay in contact with family and friends via facetime calls, phone calls, garden visits and socially distancing visits using one conservatory which was pre-bookable and time allowed for cleaning between visits.
•Staff were able to access the right PPE and confirmed there was no shortage of stock.
•Policies and procedures for infection control, COVID19 and safe admissions were in place and followed.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
People’s experience of using this service: People received a service which fully promoted their wellbeing. Staff understood that the feelings of safety, value and respect were paramount to delivering person centred care, and having a happy home. Staff were knowledgeable and skilled and took great pride in making people’s lives as good as possible, taking people to the cinema, for example.
People’s health and care needs were met and their care planned in detail with family or health care professionals, making decisions in people’s best interest. The standard of care planning was exceptionally high. It provided detailed information about the person, from which staff could learn and develop ways to deliver what could make each person’s life as good as possible.
People knew staff well, responding to them with a smile and sometimes fun and laughter.
The design led dementia friendly environment promoted people’s independence and feelings of wellbeing.
Staffing numbers were under regular review through looking at people’s level of dependency, from which staffing decisions were made. Where necessary, additional staff had been deployed.
Health care professionals said they had no concerns at all. One said the care was excellent. Medicine management was safe and medicine use was kept under regular review.
There was effective leadership supported through a strong provider overview. People’s views were sought and actions taken to improve where possible.
People’s safety was fully promoted. All aspects of the service were under regular review.
Activities were provided which people identified with and enjoyed. Relationships with family and the community were promoted.
The service was very clean and fresh and the premises were well maintained.
People received a nutritious diet in a relaxed and supportive atmosphere.
For more details, please see the full report which is on CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection: Good (June 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
A registered manager was in post. 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 2014 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The staff team were knowlegible and skilled at working with people living with dementia but they all said they were rushed, and did not have enough time to spend one to one with people. Our observations showed staffing levels were only sufficient to meet people’s basic care needs. This was because some people had complex care needs and required two staff members to assist them with all their personal care in a safe way. The staffing levels were four care staff across two units plus one senior team leader. The service used a dependency tool to check they had sufficient staff. This tool did not include a measure for ensuring people’s social needs were being met.
Staff received training in all aspects of health and safety as well as in understanding the needs of older people and dementia. Staff had support and supervision to help them understand their role and do their job effectively. Staff were skilled and patient when working alongside people. Staff understood people’s needs and wishes and preferences and worked hard to ensure these were met. Staff said they had good training and support. One staff member said ‘‘A fair few of us have worked at this home for a number of years. We have always had excellent training.’’
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are put in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way, usually to protect themselves or others. At the time of inspection the majority of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had been approved by the Local Authority in relation to people who lived at the service, 18 out of 19 residents had their Deprivation of liberty granted. This showed how the service respected people’s human rights.
Recruitment processes ensured only staff were employed who were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff understood how keep people safe following risk assessments, using the right equipment and reporting any concerns.
People’s medicines were being well managed, which included written guidance to tell staff when they should consider an as needed medicine (PRN) for people who lacked capacity.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew people’s needs and preferences. One person said ‘‘ I love it here, staff are the best.’’
Staff knew how to protect people from potential risk of harm and who they should report any concerns to. They also understood how to ensure people’s human rights were being considered and how to work in a way which respected people’s diversity. For example ensuring people were supported at a time which suited them and in a way they preferred.
Care and support was well planned and any risks were identified and actions put in place to minimise these. People had access to their plans if needed. People’s support plans are stored in the communal lounges, in secured cabinets. If people or their families wish to have access they can request a member of the team to provide access to their individual support plan. Daily records showed people’s personal, health and emotional needs were monitored. People confirmed they were able to see their GP when needed and relatives confirmed they were kept informed of any change in the needs of their relative.
The provider ensured the home was safe and that audits were used to review the quality of care and support being provided. This took into consideration the views of people using the service and the staff working there and actions were taken in response.
We have asked the provider to consider two recommendations, which are included in the main body of the report. One is around ensuring staffing levels reflect people's needs and the other is to ensure activities are available throughout the day.
We also spoke with five staff members and spent time observing how care and support was being delivered. We looked at some key records including care plans, risk assessments, medication records and staff training files. This helped us to better understand how well the home was being managed.
We found care and support was well planned and delivered by a staff team who understood the needs of people they cared for. We saw staff had good training and support to do their job and changes in the environment had enabled people to be more independent in some aspects of their lives. For example being able to make their own drinks with support.
We inspected five outcomes during this inspection and found the service to be fully compliant in all five.
There were 18 people living at the home when we visited. We looked at the records of three people in detail, and spoke with five people about their experiences at the service. However, most people were not able to comment directly on their care so we spent time with them to help us understand what life was like at the home. This meant we spent time observing care and people's interactions with staff to see whether they had positive experiences. To do this we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us about their experiences of care. We used SOFI for one and half hours in the lounge and spent another hour with people there. We spoke with two relatives of people living at the home, five staff and the manager.
People told us that they were satisfied with the care. For example, one person said 'It's good here' and another person said 'It's very nice here, they're always catering for people's needs'. Another person told us that they had been helped to reduce the medicines they were having and saw this as a great benefit to them.
People said that they feel safe. For example, they told us they were 'Treated very well' and 'Some of the staff are exceptional'.
We saw that people were stimulated by being enabled to engage in activities and this had a positive effect on their wellbeing. A tea dance was held whilst we were visiting; each person was enabled to dance with assistance or in a seated position. Two relatives told us 'They held a party for the jubilee, there's always something going on'.
People said that the home was 'well run'. Two relatives told us they were 'always made welcome' and 'kept up to date with developments at the home' and about their relations wellbeing.
At this inspection, we did not make any compliance actions although we made the provider aware of an area that they might improve. This was about the provider's arrangements for extra staffing if needed in the short-term. The arrangements meant that additional staffing could not be consistently guaranteed at times of increased need, which could impact on people's care.