Archived: Woodfield House

Updated 4 May 2017

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.

We inspected the service on 1 March 2017. The inspection was unannounced and the team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service. This included information we received from statutory notifications since the last inspection. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We sought feedback from the commissioners of the service and Healthwatch prior to our visit. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion which gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

The registered provider completed a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

As part of the inspection we spoke with seven people and two of their relatives and/or friends. We spent time in the communal areas and observed how staff interacted with people and some people showed us their rooms. We did not use the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We found people were able to describe their experiences to us.

During the visit we spoke with the registered manager, two deputy managers, the area manager and the nominated individual. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider. We spoke with five members of staff including care workers, senior care workers and the cook.

During the inspection we reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records, including care planning documentation and medication records. We looked at three staff files, including staff recruitment and training records, records relating to the management of the home and a variety of policies and procedures developed and implemented by the registered provider.

Updated 4 May 2017

Woodfield House is a care home without nursing for up to 28 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. The home is arranged over two floors which can be accessed via a lift. The home has a garden which people can access and it is close to local amenities. At the time of our inspection 13 people lived at the service.

At the last inspection in January 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

We discussed with the registered manager and registered provider some areas of improvement we identified in relation to medicines, training records and the quality assurance system. The registered provider was keen to make such improvements. We saw the registered provider had worked to develop a new care plan system which would improve the records relating to risk assessment and mental capacity assessment for people. People and their families were positive about the leadership of the service.

We saw staff recruitment was safe which ensured candidates were suitable to support vulnerable people. Staff told us they received appropriate support to enable them to perform their role. We saw records to confirm this.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were happy with the choice of food they received and we observed a positive mealtime experience. People were supported to have access to healthcare support and their health needs were monitored well by staff.

People and their relatives told us they found staff to be caring, kind and friendly. We observed positive and warm interactions between staff and people who used the service. People were offered choices and were supported to maintain their independence.

People’s preferences were recorded in their care plans and staff were aware of these when delivering support. People had access to a wide range of activities, which included their own personal hobbies.

People, their families and members of staff had opportunities to provide feedback on the service and their views were listened to and acted upon. This meant the service was run in the best interests of the people who lived there.