Woodside Hall Nursing Home

Woodside hall Nursing Home is a 'care home.' People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and nursing or personal care for up to 41 people and there were 38 people living at the home at the time of the inspection. Woodside hall Nursing Home is a detached property in a rural location. It is an older residential property which has been extended and adapted to be suitable as a care home providing nursing care. There were two passenger lifts so people can access the first floor and corridors had sloping floors rather than steps for those with mobility needs. All bedrooms were single rooms and most had a en suite shower room or en suite WC. Communal areas included three lounges and two dining rooms. An enclosed courtyard garden was fully accessible for people and extensive gardens surround much of the property.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People and visitors found staff to be exceptionally kind and caring. People were encouraged to take part in decisions about their care and support and their views were listened to. Staff respected people's individuality, privacy, dignity and independence. The home had an open, friendly atmosphere in which people, visitors and staff were encouraged to make their views and opinions known.

The provider had arrangements in place to protect people from risks to their safety and welfare.

Arrangements were also in place to store medicines safely and to administer them according to people's needs and preferences. People were supported to access healthcare services, such as GPs and community nursing teams. At the end of their lives people received the care they required to remain comfortable and pain free.

Staffing levels enabled people to be supported safely and in a calm, professional manner. Recruitment processes were followed to make sure only workers who were suitable to work in a care setting were employed. Staff received appropriate training and supervision to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to support people to the required standard.

Staff were aware of the need to gain people's consent to their care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The arrangements included processes and procedures to protect people from the risk of abuse.

People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain their health and welfare. They could make choices about their food and drink, and meals were prepared appropriately where people had particular dietary needs.

Care and support were based on plans which considered people's needs and conditions, as well as their abilities and preferences. Care plans were adapted as people's needs changed, and were reviewed regularly.

People could take part in leisure activities which reflected their interests and provided a high level of mental and physical stimulation. Group and individual activities were available if people wished to take part.

Systems were in place to make sure the service was managed efficiently and to monitor and assess the quality of service provided. The provider acted where these systems found improvements could be made.

We looked at five care plans and saw they were individualised and included the necessary information to inform staff as to the specific care people required. We saw these were reviewed on a monthly basis. We observed care in the communal areas of the home and saw staff interacting with people in a positive way.

We found there were appropriate arrangements in place in relation to the obtaining, storing and administration of medication. We looked at the records of when medication had been administered and found these had been fully completed. We saw that information about the medication people were prescribed was included in their care plans.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff available to meet people's needs. We saw there was a duty roster system, which detailed the planned cover for the home and arrangements to manage short term absences. One member of staff said 'staffing is okay, I do get time to chat with residents'. There was also an effective complaints process in place.

We spoke with six members of staff, including the manager and confirmed they had received appropriate induction training and had the skills necessary to carry out their duties. Staff had received safeguarding training and were able to say what action they would take if concerns were raised or observed. The people and family members we spoke with told us they had no concerns about any safeguarding issues. One family member told us 'I have no concerns about my mother's welfare'.

We saw there was an effective quality assurance structure in place and people and their families were asked for feedback on the care they received. We spoke with three visiting health professionals who told us they were happy with the care provided at the home. They said there was good communication and they were kept informed of changes in people's condition.