Woodside Hall Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed two quality statements in the safe key question. There was a positive open culture in which concerns about safety were listened to, safety events investigated and reported thoroughly, and lessons learnt to identify where improvements were required. Although risk assessment documentation had not always been updated to reflect changes in the way people’s risk were managed, the actions in place were appropriate.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Family members told us they were kept informed about any accidents or incidents and where necessary formal procedures under the Duty of Candour had been followed. For example, one family member told us, “Yes they informed me immediately and said what they were doing. They let me know straight away and I went straight there.” Another family member said, “They do, or if they have to call the doctor in they always let me know.” Family members felt confident to raise any concerns with the registered manager. For example, one said, “Yes, I go straight to the lady who runs it. I’ve never had to raise concerns but have spoken to the nurses about [family member] and they are very helpful.”

The management team demonstrated they were open and transparent and learnt from any incidents, accidents or safeguarding events. They shared information with CQC and relevant health and social care agencies when required and sought advice and support. Nurses and care staff reported accidents and incidents and were able to contribute their views about what happened and what they could do to reduce risks. Risks and events that had happened were shared at handovers with staff. All staff spoken to said they felt confident to raise any concerns showing an open culture existed.

There was a robust process in place to monitor incidents, accidents and near misses. This ensured all accidents or incidents were individually reviewed and prompt action could be taken should this be required. This included following the Duty of Candour procedures which require service providers to be open and honest with people or family members especially when there have been incidents or accidents.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Risks were managed in a way to ensure people were able to be as independent as possible and could enjoy activities they liked doing. People confirmed that there were always two staff when moving and handling equipment was used. Most people felt there were sufficient staff available who responded promptly to call bells.

Discussions with staff showed they understood people’s individual risks and daily records of care showed staff were following risk mitigation measures. The registered manager and provider told us they had identified a need for improvements in the completion of risk assessments and had a plan in place to address this.

Staff were available to offer support to people. We observed staff supporting people safely, following people’s individual risk management plans. Where equipment was required, this was available and being used safely.

There was a risk assessment process in place using the providers electronic care management system. This had been identified by the management team who were addressing this aspect of record keeping with nursing staff. Although the documentation had not always been updated to reflect changes in the way people’s risk were managed the actions in place were appropriate. Daily records of care showed staff were following risk mitigation measures.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.