Woodland View

Woodland View is a purpose-built residential care home providing personal and nursing care to a maximum of 60 people. This includes support for older people, younger adults, people with physical disabilities and people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, there were 47 people living at Woodland View.

Woodland View accommodates people across four separate units, each of which has separate facilities, including dining rooms and lounges. One of the units specialises in providing care to people living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Potential risks to people were being effectively assessed and mitigated. People’s care plans and risk assessments were up to date. They had been reviewed to make sure the service had accurate information on people’s preferences and needs, including in relation to COVID-19. People’s medicine was being managed safely, ensuring people could access the medication they require. Staff were safely recruited. The registered manager undertook a regular analysis of themes and trends relating to incidents. When improvement was needed, lessons learned was communicated to staff in team meetings. Staff had access to sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and used this in line with government guidance. We recommended some improvements to PPE ‘donning and doffing’ areas which the manager completed straight away.

The registered manager had oversight of governance and quality assurance processes at Woodland View, regular audits were carried out. Staff told us they felt supported by management and felt able to raise any concerns they might have. People’s relatives were complimentary about the service and the quality of care people received. The registered manager had ensured people living at Woodland View could still share their views about the service when self-isolating during the pandemic.

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.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 11 June 2019).

Why we inspected

We received concerns about the management of the service, including assessing and responding to risks to ensure people are safe from the risk of harm and Infection Prevention and Control (IPC). As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

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 coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

We found no evidence during this inspection people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report. Where we made recommendations to the registered manager, action was promptly taken.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodland View on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor the information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People’s experience of using this service:

¿ Staff supported people to keep safe and acted when necessary to prevent any harm or discrimination.

¿ People and their relatives told us sometimes they had to wait for help as staff were very busy. We saw this also impacted on staff being able to effectively monitor people’s safety and sit and talk with people. We have made a recommendation about this.

¿ Relatives praised the friendly, welcoming atmosphere of the service. One relative said, “They are always happy and chatty.”

¿ People were supported by management and staff who were skilled, highly motivated, kind, and compassionate.

¿ Staff involved healthcare professionals to ensure people's health care needs were met and supported people to take their medicines as prescribed.

¿ Relatives praised the compassionate, caring support people received at the end of their life.

¿ People were happy with the food and drink they received and complimented the in-house café area where they and their visitors could make drinks.

¿ The provider worked in partnership with external professionals and organisations to support people’s care and quality of life.

¿ Staff knew people well. They had developed good relationships with people.

¿ People were consulted over their care and support needs and were actively encouraged to make decisions for themselves.

¿ People had access to a range of activities to take part in if they wished.

¿ The systems in place to check the safety, and gain feedback on the quality and experiences of the service people are experiencing, needs to be further developed.

Rating at last inspection: Good. The date the last report was published was 10 June 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and plan to re-inspect this service within the published timeframe for services rated as Requires Improvement.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 staff had attended training to ensure they had good understanding of their roles and responsibilities. The training included safeguarding so that staff were knowledgeable about what to do if they suspected abuse was happening. The manager had shared information with the local authority when needed. An assessment to determine the person’s needs was carried out prior to admission to the service and was updated as required. The service also assessed risks to the people using the service and considered actions that could be taken to reduce these risks and keep them to a minimum.

People were supported by a sufficient number of suitably qualified nursing staff, supported by care staff. The provider had ensured appropriate recruitment checks were carried out on staff before they started work. Staff had been recruited safely and had the skills and knowledge to provide care and support to people in the ways they preferred.

The provider had systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. The Act, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals. People at the service were subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Senior staff were also aware of best interest meetings and last power of attorney.

Understanding and empathic relationships had developed between people and staff. Staff responded to people’s needs in a compassionate and caring manner. People were supported to make day to day decisions and were treated with dignity and respect. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported and enabled to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives. The service had set some lounges aside for various functions and had a cinema room plus a small garden terrace which staff and people using the service worked together to maintain.

Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent in meeting people’s needs. The manager and deputy manager supported and supervised staff in their roles. People, where able, were involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and support with families and nursing staff input as appropriate.

People’s health needs were managed appropriately with input from relevant health care professionals to support the resident service staff. People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well. People were supported to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet and sufficient fluid intake to maintain good health. Staff ate meals with the people using the service at meal times which provided opportunities to discuss information and build relationships. Staff had training to fulfil their role of effectively monitoring people’s health needs.

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family so that they were not socially isolated. There was an open culture and staff were supported to provide care that was centred on the individual. Both the manager and deputy manager were open and approachable and enabled people who used the service to express their views.

People were supported to report any concerns or complaints and they felt they would be taken seriously. People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to be involved in decisions about the service. The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service.