Archived: Woolnough House

Updated 17 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. The inspection was planned to check whether the registered provider was 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.

The inspection took place on 29 July 2016. The inspection was unannounced. This meant the registered provider and staff did not know we would be visiting. The inspection team was made up of two Adult Social Care (ASC) Inspectors.

Before our inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and what improvements they plan to make. We looked at information we held about the service, which included information shared with the Care Quality Commission via our public website and notifications sent to us since our last inspection of the service. Notifications are when registered providers send us information about certain changes, events or incidents that occur within the service. We used this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection, we spoke with six people who used the service and seven visitors who were their relatives or friends. We also spoke with three visiting health and social care professionals. We spoke with the registered manager, the head of service who oversaw all of the registered provider's homes, a care leader, three care workers, the cook and an intern who worked for the registered provider.

We looked at four people’s care files, recruitment records for four members of staff, training records, medication records and a selection of records used to monitor the quality of the service. We observed interactions between staff and people who used the service and observed lunch being served.

Updated 17 September 2016

Woolnough House is a residential care home run by City of York Council. It is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 33 older people. The service is purpose built and accommodation is provided across two floors with lift access. The service is located in Tang Hall, east of the city centre. There are local amenities close by and parking is available on-site.

At the time of our inspection, Woolnough House provided permanent accommodation, but also had 12 rooms available for people coming out of hospital. These rooms were being used as part of a project called ‘discharge to assess’, whereby people who were medically fit were discharged from hospital to Woolnough House for further assessment of their social care needs.

We inspected this service on 29 July 2016. The inspection was unannounced. This meant the registered provider and staff did not know we would be visiting. At the time of our inspection 28 people were using the service; 23 people living at the home and five people using the service’s ‘discharge to assess’ beds.

The service was last inspected in January 2014 at which time it was compliant with the regulations that were in force at that time.

The registered provider is required to have a registered manager as a condition of registration for this service. The service did have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

During our inspection, we found that systems were in place to support staff to identify and respond to safeguarding concerns. Risk assessments were used to identify risks and provide guidance to staff on how to safely meet people’s needs.

Appropriate checks were completed to ensure only staff considered suitable to work with adults who may be vulnerable had been employed. Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet people’s needs. Staff received training to support them to provide effective care and support. We identified some gaps in training and saw that the registered manager and registered provider were taking steps to address this. We have made a recommendation about training in the body of our report.

We identified discrepancies in medicine stock records and minor gaps in recording on Medication Administration Records (MARs). We have made a recommendation about this in the body of our report.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with relevant legislation and guidance on best practice. Staff were proactive in meeting people’s needs in a way that maintained their privacy and dignity.

People were supported to ensure they ate and drank enough and we received positive feedback about the quality of the food provided at Woolnough House. Staff worked effectively with other health and social care professionals to ensure people’s health needs were met.

People who used the service told us staff were kind, caring and attentive. Staff supported and encouraged to make decisions about their care and support. Person centred care plans were in place to guide staff on how to meet people’s individual needs. Care plans were in the process of being updated onto a new more detailed file format.

People were supported and encouraged to engage in activities. There was vibrant atmosphere within the service with meaningful stimulation. People could choose how they spent their time and staff supported people to maintain contact with family members by welcoming visitors to the service.

There were systems in place to gather and respond to feedback about the service. Complaints were appropriately dealt with in line with the registered providers complaints policy and procedure. We received consistently positive feedback about the registered manager and their management of the service. We were told the registered manager was approachable and responsive to feedback. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the care and support provided.