We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodway House 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 Woodway House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice
• Safe staffing levels were maintained at the service. All staff had completed external health service led training in relation to infection prevention and control (IPC) and correct use of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing. Regular refresher training sessions were facilitated by the registered manager who also completed regular competency checks.
• Activities were encouraged socially distanced to support people to engage in meaningful activities and to minimise impact on their wellbeing. Activities were repeated throughout the week to allow equal access for people.
• Cleaning schedules were in place and frequently audited to ensure the equipment and premises were clean. High touch areas were cleaned at least three times every 24 hours with appropriate cleaning products.
• Policies, procedures and risk assessments in relation to COVID-19 were up to date and reviewed regularly.
Woodway House is a residential home which provides accommodation for up to 32 people. At the time of our inspection there were 28 people using the service. At the last inspection, in February 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the service remained Good.
The service had a registered manager. 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 continued to feel safe. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to safeguard people from the risk of harm. Risks to people were assessed and monitored regularly. The premises were maintained to support people to stay safe.
Staffing levels ensured that people's care and support needs were met. Safe recruitment processes were in place.
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered safely by staff who were trained to do so. The temperature of the storage rooms needed to be more closely monitored to ensure they remained within safe parameters.
Systems were in place to ensure the premises were kept clean and hygienic so people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. There were arrangements in place to make sure action was taken and lessons learned when things went wrong, to improve safety across the service.
People were supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff and the registered manager had an understanding of the MCA. Staff told us that they sought people's consent before delivering their support.
People’s needs and choices were assessed and their care provided in line with up to date guidance and best practice. They received care from staff who had received training and support to carry out their roles.
People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People were able to see healthcare professionals when they needed. People were supported to eat healthily and staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink.
Staff were caring and compassionate. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff ensured their privacy was maintained. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided. Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and preferences.
People using the service and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Care plans were focused on the person and their wishes and preferences. People were asked about their wishes at the end of their life.
People were supported to take part in activities that they wanted to do and were encouraged to follow their hobbies and interests. People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. The provider had a system in place to obtain people’s views of the service.
The service had a positive ethos and open culture and people were involved in decisions about changes. People, their relatives and staff felt confident to approach the registered manager and felt they would be listened to.
Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and review the quality of the service that was provided to drive continuous improvement.
Woodway House is a residential home which provides accommodation for up to 32 people. At the time of our inspection there were 31 people using the service as a double room was used by one person.
The service had a registered manager. 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 felt safe. Staff understood how to keep people safe. They were trained and knowledgeable about their responsibilities in reporting any suspected abuse both internally and externally.
Staff were recruited following the provider’s recruitment procedures and this ensured only people suitable to work at the service did so. There were sufficient trained staff employed in the home to meet people’s basic need, however they were not always deployed in the most effective way.
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered safely by staff who were trained to do so. There were some minor errors in recording when people received their medicines.
Staff received the training and support they required to care for people. Staff understood people’s needs. Care plans provided staff with the written information they needed to provide people’s care in a personalised way.
Staff understood the relevance of and acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards when they supported people.
Staff understood the importance of ensuring people had sufficient to eat and drink. People were assessed to identify if they were at risk of not having their nutritional needs met and were monitored. Catering staff were provided with the information they needed to ensure people’s dietary needs and preferences were met.
People said staff were kind and caring and that their privacy and dignity was supported. Staff understood people’s needs and were provided with the information they needed to provide support as people preferred.
People using the service and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support. People were supported to see healthcare professionals if they felt unwell. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and referred to the appropriate healthcare services such as speech and language therapist if they had concerns.
People’s care plans were focused on their individual needs. Staff supported people to maintain their independence by encouraging them to follow their hobbies and interests. People using the service and their relatives knew how to raise concerns. The provider had a system in place to obtain people’s views of the service.