Woodfield Court

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

There was a warm and friendly atmosphere within the home. People described being happy living at Woodfield Court and spoke positively about the care they received and the running of the home.

Systems were in place to reduce the risks of avoidable harm and abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns about people's care and safety. Risks to people were regularly monitored and assessed with appropriate management plans in place to mitigate. This included timely referrals to healthcare services.

People were provided with their medicines safely. The home was visibly clean and good infection control processes followed. Relatives told us they could visit their family members when they chose to.

Processes were in place to learn lessons when things had gone wrong with actions taken to reduce future incidents happening.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment was done safely. Staff were encouraged to professionally develop and were supported through an induction, ongoing training, and supervision.

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.

Governance systems were in place to assess the safety and quality of care in the home. The provider was committed to the continual development of the home and was strengthening their oversight processes to support the new manager in their role. They were also implementing improved feedback systems to capture and reflect how the input of people, relatives and staff were used to shape home.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 17 October 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodfield Court on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Woodfield Court is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 29 people aged 65 years and over across two floors. At the time of the inspection 26 people were living at the service.

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

The staff had received training including the safeguarding of people, administration of medicines, infection control and diabetes. The staff also informed us they had regular supervision and a yearly appraisal. The service had sufficient members of staff to cover the rota and the systems to recruit staff safely were robust.

A care plan and risk assessments had been written from an assessment of the person’s needs and was updated as necessary. The staff were aware of the contents of the care plan so that they understood the person’s needs and how to support them to meet their desired goal. People’s care was planned to meet their assessed nutritional and health needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their life and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People’s privacy, support to remain independent and dignity was respected. We observed staff listening to people and helping them to make choices. People’s relatives were involved in their care planning in agreement with the person and care reviews were planned.

People received a responsive service which was adaptable to support their needs depending upon how they felt during the day. There were systems in place to assess, plan and meet their individual needs and preferences. Activities continued to be developed with the people living at the service so that they could enjoy hobbies and interests at the service while accessing the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place.

The deputy manager told us the aim of the service was to deliver person-centred quality care. The service provided was assessed and monitored by the registered manager and senior staff of the organisation. The staff also conversed frequently with people using the service to determine their views and develop the service.

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

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Good (published 31 January 2017) and the key question for effective was rated at requires improvement. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and this key question was now also rated good as were all of the other key questions.

The overall rating for the service remains Good.

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.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were protected from the risk of abuse as staff had attended training to provide them with knowledge and an understanding of their roles and responsibilities with guidance in how to respond if they suspected abuse was happening. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and what measures they should put in place to help people maintain their independence while supporting them to be safe.

People were supported by a sufficient number of experienced and caring staff. We saw over the meal times that staff were extremely busy and managerial staff were involved with serving and supporting people with their dietary requirements. The manager told us they were keeping the staffing ratio under close review to gauge if additional staffing were required. The provider had ensured appropriate recruitment checks had been carried out on staff before they commenced work to determine they were suitable to work with the people living at the service.

The provider had systems in place to manage medicines and people were supported to take their prescribed medicines safely. People were encouraged to self-medicate where it was safe for them to do so. Just prior to our visit the pharmacist supplying the service medication had carried out a full inspection which was overall satisfactory with a few recommendations.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Appropriate mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been undertaken by relevant professionals. This ensured that the decision was taken in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, DoLS and associated Codes of Practice. MCA, Safeguards and Codes of Practice are in place to protect the rights of adults by ensuring that if there is a need for restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed and decided by appropriately trained professionals. Some people at the service were subject to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff had been trained and had a good understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The MCA records could have been more closely related to other parts of the care plan which would certainly assist any bank, agency or unfamiliar staff to know and understand the relative’s needs. We understand that this will be addressed through care reviews.

People’s health needs were managed appropriately with input from relevant health care professionals. People were treated with kindness and respect by staff who knew them well. People were supported to maintain a nutritionally balanced diet and sufficient fluid intake to maintain good health. Staff ensured that people’s health needs were effectively monitored. The staff were aware of individual health needs and responded to people’s concerns and behaviours in an appropriate and compassionate manner.

Positive and caring relationships had been developed between the people and staff. People were supported to make day to day decisions and were treated with dignity and respect at all times. People were given choices in their daily routines and their privacy and dignity was respected. People were supported and enabled to be as independent as possible in all aspects of their lives.

Staff knew people well and were trained, skilled and competent in meeting people’s needs. However staff were not receiving supervision and appraisals on a regular planned basis and also we were not aware of staff meetings being organised as frequently as staff would wish. There were management meetings to discuss matters relating to the service and how to progress.

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family so that they were not socially isolated. There was an open culture and staff were supported to provide care that was centred upon the individual. The manager and deputy were approachable and enabled people who used the service to express their views.

People were supported to report any concerns or complaints and they felt they would be taken seriously. People who used the service, or their representatives, were encouraged to be involved in decisions about the service.

The provider had systems in place to check the quality of the service and take the views and concerns of people and their relatives into account to make improvements to the service. People were pleased with the activities but would like more to be provided.

The service was carrying out surveys to determine how to develop the service into the future.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service the deputy manager asked to see our identification and asked us to sign in the visitor's book. One person told us, 'I feel safe living here because there are always staff on duty including at night.'

There have been no applications made under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 in relation to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).We saw that there was a policy and procedure in place and that training for staff was planned.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered and each person's care records were reviewed monthly.

Is the service caring?

One person told us, 'The food is lovely and beautifully cooked.' People who used the service had been invited to complete a satisfaction questionnaire in September 2013 all were either satisfied or well satisfied with the service.

Is the service responsive?

People using the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. An activity co-ordinator worked in the service for five sessions per week. One person told us, 'I enjoy the activities.' They also informed us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked with other services to ensure people received the planned care.

One person stated, "I like to be left alone when I want which the staff respect, but the staff do help me when required." another person told us, "The staff help me to go to Stowmarket and nothing is too much trouble."

We found the service was compliant in five areas. The environment was well maintained and odour free. The service has a garden which was available for the people to enjoy as was the garden tea-room. The equipment within the service was well maintained and regularly checked and the staff had received supervision, appraisals and on-going training support.

The service was non-compliant in one outcome and we have told the service to work upon this particular aspect of care delivery, monitoring and recording

Care plans had been reviewed and were now accessible to staff and people living at the service. They were up to date and gave clear instruction to people on how best to meet people's needs. Risk assessments had been completed, training had been sourced and attended and advice from professionals had been sought. This meant that people at Woodfield Court were receiving appropriate care and support.

We met a relative and a person who lived at the service. Both were very complimentary about the service. Both said they would recommend it to others. The person living at the service said 'I can't find fault at all. I like to be independent where I can and they help me. If I want something more I just ask. I know if I had a problem they would sort it out'.