We carried out a review of the data available to us about Woodleigh Manor Residential Care 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 Woodleigh Manor Residential Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Woodleigh Manor is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 34 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. It is located in a quiet residential area in the town of Hessle, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. At the time of our inspection the service was fully occupied.
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.
During our inspection, we found exceptional standards of care. The registered manager and staff were absolutely committed to delivering a personalised service. They worked collaboratively with people, their visitors and health and social care professionals to ensure the care provided met each person's individual needs. We observed staff demonstrated a compassionate, kind and caring manner towards people who lived at the service. We saw many examples of how the caring approach of staff had a very positive impact on people's lives.
People received care and support that was extremely flexible and responsive to their individual needs and preferences. The registered manager and staff were creative in enabling people to live as full a life as possible, particularly where their skills had deteriorated. We saw numerous examples of staff going the extra mile, ensuring that the service was focused at all times on people living there. People's individuality was supported, which enabled people to grow in confidence and regain and develop as much independence as possible. The staff and management were very proud of the support they provided and the positive outcomes that people had achieved.
All the people, visitors and health and social care professionals we spoke with were extremely complimentary about the registered manager and staff at Woodleigh Manor. They were described with terms such as “Amazing”, “Excellent” and “Truly committed.” Visitors were very positive when talking about the staff team that supported their loved ones. One comment that had been left by a visitor said, ‘Staff are always there to help and advise, they always go the extra mile and give 100%.’
The registered manager and staff looked for creative ways to ensure people's needs were met, and ensured any obstacles were overcome when possible. People were consistently treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was respected. Staff were very kind, humorous and patient in their approach. People received care and support from a consistent and dedicated team of staff that put people first and were able to spend time with people in a meaningful way.
The service worked very well with other organisations. People, visitors, staff and health and social care professionals spoke highly of the registered manager; they told us they found them to be committed, supportive and approachable. One health and social care professional told us, "Woodleigh Manor has always gone above and beyond in what they have done for each of the service users I have supported there. This has been done in such a person centred way and I have always had great feedback from service users (if able) and families alike about the care that they and their loved ones felt they have received.”
Staff understood the provider's safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people and who to contact if they had any concerns. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Medicines were managed safely. Staff had received relevant training and regular medicine audits were taking place.
Care plans we looked at included personal information and were person-centred. The plans and associated risk assessments were reviewed and updated regularly or when anything changed.
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. However, during the first day of inspection we noted the provider had not always followed the correct process for making best interest decisions in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We saw some peoples bedroom doors were locked whilst they were in their rooms; this was not due to lack of staff as we judged there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to safely care for the number of people living at the service. The registered manager told us this was done to reduce the risk of other people using the service entering people’s private rooms and touching their possessions. They told us this had been decided in agreement with the person and their relatives where required. We were unable to see appropriate risk assessments completed in relation to peoples safety in the event of a fire, as capacity assessments and best interests decisions for those people who were unable to make this decision themselves had not been completed. The provider and registered manager responded promptly to these concerns and on the second day of inspection we saw appropriate action had been taken in line with the MCA and thorough assessments of the risk to people’s safety had been completed.
People had enough to eat and drink to maintain good health and nutrition. People had access to a range of support from health and social care professionals.
The registered manager took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. People and their visitors we spoke with told us they were aware of how to make a complaint and were confident they could express any concerns and these would be addressed.
The registered manager understood their responsibilities and ensured people, visitors and staff felt able to contribute to the development of the service.
Staff told us they really enjoyed working at the service and spoke positively about the culture and management. Staff were supported to be valued members of the service. We saw evidence of regular staff meetings and staff supervision sessions were undertaken regularly.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection took place on 18 June 2015 and was unannounced. We previously visited the service on 12 September 2013 and we found that the registered provider met the regulations we assessed.
The service is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 34 older people, some of whom may be living with a dementia related condition. The home is located in Hessle, a small town close to Hull, in the East Riding of Yorkshire. It is situated in a quiet residential location but is still close to local amenities and on good transport routes. The home is located within its own grounds. Most people have a single bedroom and some bedrooms have en-suite facilities. The home was fully occupied on the day of the inspection.
The registered provider is required to have a registered manager in post and on the day of the inspection there was a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). 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 that they felt safe living at the home. Staff had completed training on safeguarding adults from abuse and were able to describe to us the action they would take if they had concerns about someone’s safety. There were moving and handling ‘champions’ at the home to advise staff about safe moving and handling techniques and we saw good practice on the day of the inspection.
We observed good interactions between people who lived at the home, staff and relatives on the day of the inspection. People told us that staff were caring and compassionate. They also told us how staff promoted their privacy and dignity.
People were supported to make their own decisions and when they were not able to do so, decisions were made in their best interests. If it was considered that people were being deprived of their liberty, the correct documentation was in place to confirm this had been authorised.
Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage and recording were satisfactory.
We saw that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. New staff had been employed following the home’s recruitment and selection policies to ensure that only people considered suitable to work with vulnerable people had been employed. People who lived at the home were involved in decision making about who was employed.
People who used the service and relatives told us that staff were effective and skilled. Staff received a thorough induction programme before they worked unsupervised. Staff had sufficient opportunities to attend training courses, both in-house and external to the home. Staff told us they were well supported and we saw that they had appraisals and supervision meetings with a manager to ensure they had opportunities to share any concerns they might have.
People’s nutritional needs had been assessed and most people told us that they were satisfied with the meals provided by the home. The home had received a Nutrition Mission award from Humber NHS.
There were systems in place to seek feedback from people who lived at the home, relatives, health and social care professionals and staff. People’s comments were responded to appropriately and people felt that this had led to improvements being made to the service they received. Information was made available to visitors about various aspects of care and arrangements had been made for relatives to have confidential meetings with a senior member of staff if they felt this would be beneficial. This meant that people were provided with information appropriately.
We received excellent feedback about the registered manager’s leadership skills. Relative, staff and care professionals told us that the home was managed by an enthusiastic and skilled manager, who encouraged staff and led by example. The quality audits undertaken by the registered manager were designed to identify any areas of concern or areas that were unsafe, and there were systems in place to ensure that lessons were learned from any issues identified, and to promote continuous improvement. There was evidence that the registered manager kept up to date with development within the care sector and used this information to promote good practice within the staff team.
We observed positive interactions between people who lived at the home and staff. Staff were seen to be patient with people and to use appropriate diversion techniques. Care plans included sufficient information to guide staff about how each person wished to be supported and records were updated on a regular basis to ensure that staff had current information to follow.
Medication was stored, administered and recorded in a safe way and this ensured people received the correct medicine at the correct time. Medication had been returned to the pharmacy when it was no longer needed.
There were robust recruitment and selection processes in place and records evidenced that there were sufficient members of staff on duty; this was confirmed by visitors and staff.
The quality monitoring systems at the home ensured that people who used the service, relatives and staff had the opportunity to comment on the service provided, and that any complaints or concerns were investigated.
People living at the home told us that staff were 'very good'; they said that staff were kind and always spoke to them in a pleasant manner. One person said, 'I would speak to any of the staff if I had a concern' and everyone that we spoke with said that they were certain that any concerns they had would be dealt with appropriately. People told us that they felt safe living at the home.
People told us that staff had the skills needed to carry out their role and that staff sometimes told them about the training they had attended. Staff told us that they were 'always on training courses'. They felt that this gave them the knowledge and skills needed to provide good support to people living at the home.
Staff said that they were well supported by the manager and senior staff and they could raise issues at any time. They were confident that issues would be dealt with in the correct manner.
The people who lived at the home said that they could not recall being asked about their views on the way the home was operated but said that they were 'satisfied with everything' and had no concerns. They named people that they would be happy to speak with if they had any worries and said that they were sure they would be dealt with.