We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodlands Gate Rest Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Woodlands Gate Rest Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• The home had changed from a paper records system to a digital one which gave staff more time to support activities such as a garden fete, doll therapy and music sessions. People enjoyed political debates with staff regarding the pandemic and the governments response to it.
• Regular newsletters were sent to families and video calls took place to connect people and their family members. People were also supported to write letters to their families.
• Changes had been made to meal times and communal environments to promote social distancing. Cleaning of the communal areas and touch points was completed more frequently.
• Government guidelines for the use of personal protective equipment were followed. People who had tested positive for COVID 19 were isolated and a specific team of staff worked only with those people during that time.
• The registered manager had amended working patterns to support staff wellbeing and had amended duties where necessary to support vulnerable members of staff.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Woodlands Gate is a care home that provides personal care for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection, 17 people lived at the service. The home is established over two floors, with a range of communal areas included three lounges, a dining room and a large garden.
People’s experience of using this service:
People told us they were safe, felt happy with the service and that staff were caring and responsive. Staff enjoyed working with people and relatives recognised that staff and managers often went ‘the extra mile’ to make sure people received the support they needed.
There were sufficient staff on duty on the day of the inspection to keep people safe and meet people’s needs. People told us they sometimes had to wait for their care if the home was not fully staffed on a particular day. Staff were checked to make sure they were suitable to work in the home and were well trained for their work.
Medicines were well managed although records did not always show whether people had received their medication or not. Audits and checks were effective in highlighting areas for improvement and action was taken when errors had been found.
People enjoyed the food and had access to regular drinks and snacks throughout the day. Staff ensured people’s health was monitored and referrals were made to healthcare professionals as and when required.
The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people’s consent was obtained before care and support was given. People were supported in the least restrictive way possible so that they had maximum control over their lives.
People were consistently treated with respect and patience and were able to make choices about how they wanted to be supported and how they wanted to spend their day. People were also supported to maintain their independence wherever possible.
People and their relatives knew how to complain and were asked to give feedback on the service on a regular basis. Staff ensured there were regular activities on offer for people to take part in if they so wished and relatives were made to feel welcome in the home.
People, staff and relatives were happy with the way the service was being led and managed and we saw that managers were visible in the home and approachable. There was a culture of delivering good quality care which was person-centred and reflected people’s needs.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 21 September 2016).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Enforcement:
No enforcement action was required.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
At our last comprehensive inspection in March 2015 we found the provider’s capacity to recognise and report potential safeguarding concerns was limited. Medicines were not reviewed for safety and staff had not always ensured people were referred to healthcare professionals following accidents. Arrangements to check and monitor the service needed improvement. The provider sent us an action plan and at this our most recent inspection we found that the provider had made the improvements needed.
Woodlands Gate Rest Home provides accommodation for up to 20 older people some of whom have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 18 people lived at the home.
Since our last inspection in March 2015 the manager had registered with us as is required by law. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
People who used the service and their relatives told us that they felt they received safe care. Staff had been trained to recognise harm or abuse and systems were in place for reporting these.
Staff were able to describe in detail the needs of people they supported and how to promote people’s safety. Risks to people’s safety had been identified, assessed and were regularly reviewed. People told us they had their medicines when they needed them and the arrangements in place for managing people’s medicines were safe.
People were satisfied with the numbers of staff on duty. People and their relatives had no concerns about staffing levels and described the staff as friendly and caring.
Staff had an induction into their role and support and training to ensure they had the skills to meet people’s needs.
The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been considered as part of people’s care planning to protect the legal and civil rights of people using the service. People’s consent was actively sought before care was delivered.
People told us they enjoyed the meals provided and we saw they had the support they needed to eat and drink enough. People were supported to have their routine health care needs met and medical advice was sought to keep people safe and well.
We observed positive interaction between staff and people who lived at the home. People told us staff were kind, patient, respected their need for privacy and protected their dignity.
People were actively involved in planning all aspects of their care. Personalised care plans were in place and staff understood and followed people’s preferences regarding how they wished their care to be delivered. People were actively supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities.
People, staff and relatives were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service. We saw that the provider had a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints.
The provider had systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided and were effective in ensuring the home was well led.
The inspection took place on 27 March 2015 and was unannounced. Woodlands Gate Rest Home provides accommodation, for up to 20 older people, some of whom have a diagnosis of dementia. At the time of our inspection 16 people lived at the home.
At our last inspection in October 2013 we found that the provider had breached the Health and Social Care Act 2008 in relation to the care and welfare of people and staffing. Following that inspection the provider sent us an action plan informing us of the action they would take to make the required improvements. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and that there were no breaches of those regulations. However some improvements were identified.
Since our last inspection the previous manager had retired and a new acting manager had been employed who told us they were in the process of applying to be registered. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.
People told us they felt safe in the home. However, the provider had not involved other professionals where incidents of a potential safeguarding nature had taken place. The risks to people who required the use of bedrails had not been fully reviewed and updated.
The staffing numbers had increased in line with people’s changing needs. People told us there were enough staff although the delegation of staff at mealtimes needed review.
People told us they had their medicines when they needed them. The arrangements in place for managing people’s medicines needed further improvement. Staff had information about some risks to people’s health and welfare but guidelines for the use of ‘as required’ medicines were needed.
Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, training on these had been provided. Appropriate applications had been made to the local authority where people’s liberty was restricted for their safety. Some improvement was needed to ensure all staff understood the principles of seeking people’s consent.
People were supported to have their routine health care needs met but staff had not always sought medical advice following accidents. People told us they enjoyed the meals but some people required more support from staff to eat sufficiently and protect their dignity.
We observed positive interaction between staff and people who lived at the home. Staff knew the people who lived there well and had learned their likes and dislikes. Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision. There were some gaps in the training that staff had received and we were informed that action was being taken to address this.
People who lived at the home, their relatives and staff were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the service. We saw that the provider had a system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints.
We found that whilst there were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided, these were not always effective in ensuring the home was consistently well led. We found that some improvements were needed.
There were 15 people living at the home at the time of our visit inspection. We spoke with three people who use the service, six staff members, one visiting relative and the manager. There was building work taking place at the time of our visit and we found that this was having an impact on the staff and the people currently living in the home due to the disruption caused.
People who were able to talk to us, told us they were satisfied with the level of care they received. One person said, "I can do a lot for myself so I am ok, my needs are met." Another person said, "I am fine, I stay in my room a lot so I am quite satisfied with everything."
We found that people's records had not been updated to reflect their current needs, and to ensure risks to people were managed appropriately.
We found that there were times when the staffing levels were insufficient to ensure that people were safe and received appropriate care and support.
People who were able to talk to us, told us they felt able to express their views and felt involved in making decisions about their care.
People we spoke with confirmed that staff had spoken to them about how their needs were to be met and their choices were reflected in the care they received. One person said, 'I couldn't ask to live anywhere better, the staff are nice and helpful.' Another person told us, 'I am fine here and well looked after.'
We found that people's needs were assessed, and care plans were developed in consultation with people or their representatives. The staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people's needs. This ensured people received support in a way they preferred.
We found that arrangements were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from harm.
People we spoke with were positive about the staff team. The staff members we spoke with confirmed they were supported by their manager so that they could deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
People and staff we spoke with told us they felt able to raise concerns about the service. Complaints are fully investigated and resolved as far as is practicable to the satisfaction of people using the service.