Archived: Woodland Road

Updated 9 June 2018

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.

This was a comprehensive inspection which took place on the 10 May 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team comprised of one Adult Social Care Inspector.

As part of our inspection, we ask registered providers to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. A PIR was returned to us when we asked.

Before our visit, we reviewed all the information we had in relation to the service. This included notifications, comments, concerns and safeguarding information. Our visit involved looking at three care plans, training records, policies and procedures, medication systems and various audits relating to the quality of the service. We also observed care practice within the service. We also spoke to the registered manager and two members of staff. We also observed care practice and general interactions between the people who used the service and the staff team.

In addition to this we spoke to two people who used the service. The communication needs of people who used the service were such that it was not always possible to gain a verbal account of the support they received. We observed support and interpreted the non-verbal language of people to gain an indication of the quality of the support they received.

We contacted the Local Authority commissioning team. They had not yet visited the service. We also contacted other professionals who were involved with the service.

We looked to see if there had been a recent visit from Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion created to gather and represent the views of the public. They have powers to enter registered services and comment on the quality of care provided. The team had not visited recently with their last visit taking place prior to our last inspection.

Updated 9 June 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of 12 Woodland Road on 10 May 2018.

12 Woodland Road is a residential care home registered to accommodate four people who have a learning disability. It is managed and operated by MacIntyre Care. The service operates from a dormer bungalow located in a residential area of Ellesmere Port close to local shops and transport links. At the time of our visit, three people were living there.

At our last inspection in November 2015 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection or ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People could not verbally tell us about the quality of the support they received. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff at all times and the support staff provided was centred entirely on the needs of individuals. The registered provider had introduced communication plans which outlined in detail what each type of non-verbal communication expressed by people meant and how it must be responded to.

Staff had had received training in how to protect vulnerable adults and were clear about how they could report any allegations of abuse. They were also clear about the agencies they could speak to if they had concerns about poor practice within the service.

The premises were well maintained, clean and hygienic. Equipment such as hoists, portable electrical appliances and fire extinguishers were regularly serviced to ensure that they were safe. Risk assessments were in place identifying any potential hazards within the environment that could pose a risk to people and how this risk could be prevented. Personal evacuation plans were also in place to ensure the safe evacuation of people in the event of a crisis.

Assessments were in place highlighting the risks people faced from health issues such as weight loss and malnutrition as well as risks which reflected their vulnerability. These were closely monitored and reviewed regularly.

Sufficient staff were on duty at all times of the day. Staff were always available to attend to people’s needs. Staff rotas were available to confirm that there were sufficient staff on duty at all times. Staff recruitment was robust with checks in place to ensure that new members of staff were suitable people to support vulnerable adults.

Medication management was robust and promoted the well-being and safety of people who used the service. Checks were in place to ensure that medication was given when needed and systems in place to ensure that supplies never ran out. Staff who administered medication received appropriate training and had their competency checked.

Staff received training appropriate to their role. Staff received supervision to ensure that they were aware of their progress and to discuss any needs they had. Group supervision in the form of staff meetings also took place.

The registered provider had taken the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act into account. This included assessments on the degree of capacity people had, how limited capacity would impact on their daily lives and how decisions could be made in their best interest. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood the principles associated with it.

The nutritional needs of people were met. Meals were prepared in a clean and hygienic kitchen. Food stocks were sufficient and staff were aware of the nutritional needs of people and the considerations in supporting them to eat and drink.

Staff provided a caring, inclusive and person centred approach in the way they delivered support to people. They took the privacy and dignity of people into account through practical arrangements such as knocking on doors and in the manner they interacted with people.

People were provided with activities both inside the service and in the wider community. These were provided on a one to one basis and were in line with perceived preferences.

Care plans were very person centred, presented in an easy read format and reviewed regularly in the face of changing needs.

A system for people to make complaints was available.

Although not applicable at the time of our visit, the registered provider had arrangements in place for dealing with situations where people were reaching the end of their lives.

The registered manager adopted an open and transparent approach to running the service and was very knowledgeable about the needs of those who used the service.

Staff told us that they considered the registered manager to be approachable and was running a well led service. This view was echoed by other professionals and relatives who had made compliments.

The registered provider had a number of audits in place to ensure that a commentary on the quality of care could be made and fed back comments from questionnaires to people.

Notifications required by law of any adverse events within service were always sent to us and the rating from our last visit was put on prominent display.