Archived: The Woodmill

Updated 19 March 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

The Woodmill is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed all information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. 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 of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We spoke with four people, one relative, 13 staff, including the registered manager, regional manager; consultant clinical psychologist, assistant psychologist; physiotherapist; occupational therapist; speech & language therapist and member of the care support team.

We looked at the personal care and support plans for two people and the medicines records for seven people. We also looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of other records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection –

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We spoke with two professionals who visit the service.

Updated 19 March 2020

About the service

The Woodmill provides specialist neurobehavioral assessment and rehabilitation services for people with disabilities resulting from acquired brain injury. The service can accommodate 19 people. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home. Some people were being assessed as part of a planned rehabilitation programme, some people stay at the service for a period of time and then move into community housing with support. The service also offers longer term residential care for people with complex needs who are unable to live in a community-based setting. The service forms part of the nationwide network of rehabilitation support services provided by The Brain Injury Rehabilitation Trust (BIRT).

The service had not accepted any new referral for the past 18 months. The regional manager explained, “We are currently reviewing the delivery models across the organisation and reviewing overall fee structures, it would seem wrong to admit to the Woodmill at this time. Therefore we would like to advise that we are not currently progressing referrals at this point in time until we are clear on the outcomes of this work, but will accept referrals onto a waiting list for future assessment.”

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

The service continued to place a very strong emphasis on person centred care. People received care and support that in many cases was life changing for them. The staff team excelled at managing people’s complex needs, including distressed behaviours by using techniques that had a positive impact on people’s well-being. One person told us proudly of the progress they had made at the service. They added, “I am doing really well now.”

The service was not risk adverse but proactive in enabling people to have control over their lives and to receive care and support which was personal to them. People were supported to try new things, such as interesting and challenging social activities, and to develop their daily living skills and confidence.

Staff ensured people’s communication opportunities were maximised. Various communication methods were used to ensure people were fully included and able to express their wishes.

People’s needs were comprehensively assessed, and rehabilitation support plans and goals were highly personalised. People were supported by the staff team to be fully involved in making decisions about their care, support and goals. They felt involved and their wishes were listened to and respected. This had led to the people feeling motivated, empowered and in control of their support.

The service continued to operate an open and inclusive management style where people were supported to influence the running of the service. There were effective systems to continually monitor the quality of the service. Evidence based practice was embedded within the culture of the service. The provider continued to seek new and imaginative solutions to meet the needs of people with acquired brain injuries.

Staff were highly motivated, skilled and enthusiastic, ensuring people’s needs were met in a person-centred way, which benefitted their rehabilitation. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff promoted their independence and helped to increase their confidence.

The service was safe. People felt safe at the service and relatives and professional expressed their confidence in the staff team. There were enough staff to support people, including those who required one to one support. Staff recruitment processes ensured people were protected from unsuitable staff. Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. The environment was safe, clean and well maintained.

People’s dietary needs and preferences were met, and they received appropriate support at meal times. Health needs were monitored, and people had accesses to a range of health professionals.

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

There was an appropriate procedure for dealing with complaints. People, relatives and professionals were confident any concerns would be listened to and acted upon.

Rating at last inspection The last rating for this service was Outstanding (published June 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.

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