Woodleigh

Updated 23 August 2019

The inspection:

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 registered 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.

Inspection team:

The inspection was carried out by one inspector, two ‘Experts by Experience’ and a ‘Specialist Advisor’. An ‘Expert by Experience’ is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. A ‘Specialist Advisor’ is a person who has professional experience and knowledge of the care which is being provided.

Service and service type:

Woodleigh is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At the time of the inspection the service had two managers registered with CQC. Registered managers and the registered provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications sent to us by the registered provider about incidents and events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. We also contacted local commissioners of the service to gain their views. We used the information the provider sent us in the ‘provider information return’. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to formulate a ‘planning tool’; this helped us to identify key areas we needed to focus on during the inspection.

During the inspection:

We spoke with both registered managers, two senior care assistants, five members of care staff, one external healthcare professional, 20 people living at Woodleigh, and three relatives who were visiting at the time of the inspection.

We looked at care records of four people receiving support, a sample of staff recruitment files, medication records, and other records and documentation relating to the management and quality monitoring of the service.

In addition, a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool was used. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 23 August 2019

About the service:

Woodleigh is a single-storey care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 39 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. Accommodation is split across five separate ‘units’, each offering bathroom facilities, dining areas and a garden area. The location also includes the provision of short-term breaks (respite) care services for up eight adults with learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection 37 people were living in the home and eight people were receiving respite care.

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

People received support from staff who had been appropriately recruited. Staffing levels were assessed according to the dependency support needs of people living at Woodleigh; we observed some areas of development in relation to staff support and the deployment of staff during the inspection.

Woodleigh offered spacious communal, lounge and garden areas. We identified some internal and external areas of improvement that were required. The registered managers were responsive and put measures in place to assess and monitor the home and its grounds.

People received support that was tailored around their support needs and areas of risk were regularly reviewed and monitored. Risk assessments helped to identify specific areas of support that people required.

Staff demonstrated their understanding of safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. We saw up to date policies and procedure in place and people were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.

Safe medication administration processes were in place. People received support with their medication by staff who had been appropriately trained and regularly had their competency levels checked.

Staff received regular supervision and were supported daily by the registered managers. The registered managers maintained a good level of oversight in relation to training compliance.

People received a holistic level of care in relation to their healthcare support needs. We saw that appropriate referrals were made to external professionals when needed.

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

We observed staff providing kind, compassionate and dignified care. People were also supported to remain as independent as possible and encouraged to make decisions about aspects of their care.

The registered managers and staff promoted and celebrated people’s equality and diversity support needs. We saw that measures were in place to provide an inclusive environment where people were treated dignity and respect.

A dedicated activities co-ordinator was in post at Woodleigh. They helped to arrange activities that were tailored around people’s likes and preferences.

The registered provider had an up to date complaints policy in place. Complaints were responded to in line with company policy and were reviewed monthly as a way of establishing trends and areas of improvement.

The registered provider had processes in place to monitor and assess the quality and safety of care people received. During the inspection, quality assurance processes were further strengthened to capture some of the areas of development we identified.

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

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was ‘good’ (published 26 January 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor 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.