Woodland Residential Care Home

Updated 17 March 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 25 February 2021 and was announced.

Updated 17 March 2021

We carried out this unannounced inspection of Woodland on 8 August 2017. The last comprehensive inspection took place in 27 July 2016 when we identified two breaches of regulations. Not enough was done to protect people and staff, from identified risks and monitoring records were inconsistently completed. The service sent us an action plan telling us what they were doing to meet the breaches. At this inspection we found people’s risks were being identified and responded to so they were protected. Records to ensure people’s needs were being responded to, were complete and demonstrated how they were being met.

Woodland is part of Cornwall Care and is a care home which offers care and support for up to 38 predominantly older people. At the time of the inspection there were 38 people living at the service. Some of these people were living with dementia. The accommodation is spread across four wings. There are several lounge areas where people can choose to spend their time. There was a large garden to the rear of the building.

On the day of the inspection visit there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the service. We observed people had a good relationship with staff and staff interacted with people in a caring and respectful manner. People told us, “They (staff) are always careful about our privacy and dignity” and “They (staff) are very nice here.”

Details in care plans included the level of risk and how it was going to be managed. This had improved since the previous inspection when there was little evidence of how individual risks were being managed safely and effectively. There were examples of when people were at risk, for example from falls. Guidance for staff contained detailed information on the action staff could take to minimise the risk. All records relating to the care and support of people were complete and provided staff with current information about the needs of the person. This had improved since the previous inspection when gaps were noted in a number of records relating to the care and welfare of people.

Some people told us they thought the levels of staff could be improved on. The registered manager acknowledged there had been a period of instability when agency staff had and were continuing to be used, but far less than earlier in the year. On the day of the inspection there were suitable numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people using the service. There was one agency staff member who had worked at the service on a regular basis and knew people’s needs. Staff told us, “It’s been difficult at times but things have got a lot better. Comments were mixed and included, "The staff are pretty good, although there is never enough of them" and "When I ring my call bell I find that as a rule they respond quite soon.”

People and relatives told us they thought Woodland was a safe place to live and that staff were kind, friendly and treated people well. They told us that the registered manager was always available and approachable. Comments included, “Always there if I need to speak about anything” and “I have every confidence in the manager and staff. There have been some changes but I think they have improved the home.”

Staff completed a thorough recruitment process to ensure they had the appropriate skills and knowledge for their role. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to recognise and report the signs of abuse. They were confident any concerns would be dealt with.

The registered manager used effective and systems to record and report on, accidents and incidents and take action when required.

People's rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The principles of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were understood and applied correctly. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were provided with choices and their wishes were respected.

People received their medicines on time. Medicines administration records were accurate and consistently completed. Staff supported people to access to healthcare services such as occupational therapists, GPs, chiropodists and dieticians.

Meals were appetising and people were offered a choice in line with their dietary requirements and preferences. Where necessary staff monitored what people ate to help ensure they stayed healthy.

Staff were supported by a system of induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Staff received training relevant for their role and there were good opportunities for on-going training support and development. More specialised training specific to the needs of people using the service was being provided. For example, dementia care and clinical nutrition support.

There were a range of activities available to people which were being extended by a newly appointed activity coordinator. Visitors were made to feel welcome at the service and staff recognised the value of these relationships to people.

The environment supported people living with dementia. For example signage was throughout the service with pictorial images to indicate the rooms function. An activity board was pictorial to support people and the daily menu board showed pictures of the food available each day.

People who used the service and their relatives knew how to raise a concern or to make a complaint. The complaints procedure was available and people said they were encouraged to raise concerns.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place and appropriate action had been taken to address and resolve issued identified during previous inspections. People’s feedback was valued and the results of the service’s most recent quality assurance survey had been consistently positive and complimentary. Overall satisfaction with the service was seen to be positive.

Equipment and supply services including electricity, fire systems and gas were being maintained.