Archived: Woodland Grove

Updated 30 August 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 was planned to check 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.

The inspection took place on 8 and 9, August 2017. This was an unannounced inspection, and was carried out by two inspectors and one 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 service.

Prior to the inspection, we reviewed information we held about the service including statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us.

Some people at the home were not able to tell us about their experiences. We used a number of different methods such as undertaking observations to help us understand people's experiences of the home. As part of our observations we used the Short Observational Tool for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the needs of people who could not talk with us.

During our inspection, we spoke with 11 people, the registered manager and other senior management staff, seven relatives, nine members of staff and two visiting health professionals. We tracked the care and support provided to people and reviewed eleven care plans relating to this. We looked at records relating to the management of the home, such as the staffing rota, policies, recruitment and training records, meeting minutes and audit reports.

Updated 30 August 2017

At the last inspection of the service in November 2016 we found nine breaches of regulations. Five of the breaches were repeated from the last comprehensive inspection in April 2015. The service was placed in to special measures and was rated inadequate. As a result conditions were placed on the provider's registration to encourage improvement to the service.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider's registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe. For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements at its next comprehensive inspection and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of Woodland Grove on 8 and 9 August 2017. This inspection was unannounced. Regulatory breaches from the November 2016 inspection were followed up as part of our inspection. At this inspection the provider had made sufficient improvements to be removed from special measures and is rated 'Requires Improvement' overall.

You can read the report for previous inspections, by selecting the 'All reports' link for 'Woodland Grove' on our website at www.cqc.org.uk

Woodland Grove provides accommodation and personal care for to up to 50 older people. Each person has a room which contains an en-suite shower room and small kitchenette. There are also four flats which have two bedrooms, which enable couples to be accommodated. At the time of this inspection there were 27 people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection; 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.

The provider had improved the quality monitoring systems which were used to bring about improvements to the service. Some improvements had yet to be embedded by the service.

Training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been provided to staff. DoLS aim to protect people living in care homes and hospitals from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when a person lacks the mental capacity to make certain decisions and there is no other way of supporting the person safely. Staff were knowledgeable about the protection of people's rights and appropriate best interest decisions had been recorded.

Medicines were managed and stored safely. Medicine administration records were complete. We observed that medicines were administered to people as prescribed. We have made a recommendation about PRN (as required medicine) protocols.

People's needs were regularly assessed and resulting care plans provided practical guidance to staff on how people were to be supported. The care plans required further detail and improved reviews to further enhance the person centred information within the plans. People's risk assessments were not always updated to reflect necessary actions to reduce risks to people when their circumstances changed.

There were positive and caring relationships between staff and people at the service. People praised the staff that provided their care. We received positive feedback from people's relatives and visitors to the service. Staff respected people's privacy and we saw staff working with people in a kind and compassionate way when responding to their needs.

There were enough staff to meet people's care needs. Staff demonstrated a detailed knowledge of people's care and support needs. Staff had received training to support people safely and respond to their care needs. Staff were aware of the service's safeguarding and whistleblowing policy and procedures.

There was a robust staff recruitment process in operation. The recruitment process was designed to identify staff that had the ability to develop their skills to keep people safe and support their needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals when required, and records demonstrated the service had made referrals when there were concerns.

There was a complaints procedure for people, families and friends to use and compliments could also be recorded.

The provider had made appropriate notifications to the Commission; notifications tell us about significant events that happen in the service. We use this information to monitor the service and to check how events have been handled.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.