• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Woodleaze EMI Residential Care Home

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

244 Station Road, Yate, Gloucestershire, BS37 4AF (01454) 866043

Provided and run by:
South Gloucestershire Council

All Inspections

11 February 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 11 and 15 February 2016 and was unannounced. There were no concerns at the last inspection in May 2013. Woodleaze provides accommodation for up to 28 older people. At the time of our visit there were 21 people living at the service.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

We were introduced to people throughout our visits and they welcomed us. People were relaxed, comfortable and confident in their home. We received positive comments about people’s views and experiences throughout our visits. Two relatives recently wrote in the homes survey, “We as a family are very happy with the care mum receives from all the managers and carers. Woodleaze is a wonderful care home” and “Mother is very happy here, everyone is very friendly and helpful, which is a great bonus in the home. Absolutely fantastic support”.

Staff involved in this inspection demonstrated a genuine passion for the roles they performed and individual responsibilities. Visions and plans for the future were understood and shared across the staff team. They embraced new initiatives with the support of the registered manager and colleagues. They continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt able to make positive changes.

People experienced a lifestyle that met their individual expectations, capacity and preferences. There was a strong sense of empowering people wherever possible and providing facilities where independence would be encouraged and celebrated. People’s health, well-being and safety were paramount.

The registered manager listened to people and staff to ensure there were enough staff to meet people's needs. They demonstrated their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service and used a risk based approach to help ensure that staffing levels and skill mix was effective.

Staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. They enjoyed attending training sessions and sharing what they had learnt with colleagues. There was an emphasis on teamwork and unison amongst all staff at all levels.

People were supported to enjoy a healthy, nutritious, balanced diet whilst promoting and respecting choice. One person visiting told us, “The food is marvellous and very good quality. I have eaten meals here and it’s as good as our local pub”.

Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner. They were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful. People were supported to maintain their personal interests and hobbies.

The registered manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). For people who were assessed as not having capacity, records showed that their advocates or families and healthcare professionals were involved in making decisions.

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and personalised.

Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals and where necessary care and support had been changed to accurately reflect people's needs.

People, relative and staff feedback was a vital part of the quality assurance system either through annual surveys, ‘residents’ meetings, complaints or reviews. They were listened to and action was taken to make improvements to their quality of life. The registered manager monitored and audited the quality of care provided striving to meet the ever changing needs of people living in the home.

7 August 2014

During a routine inspection

The purpose of this inspection was to find out five key questions. Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, seeking experience and views from people who use the service and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

The service is a local authority home. They were in the process of consultation with regards to possible future closure of the home.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe and 'in good hands'. One person said 'I feel very safe here and I know that the staff care about me'.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. There were effective systems in place where people did not have capacity and best interest decisions were made through a multi-agency approach.

People's health and welfare was protected and promoted because the service sought expertise and support from other health and social care services that people required in order to meet their needs effectively.

People were safe because the manager ensured there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The manager was able to demonstrate their responsibilities in recognising changing circumstances within the service and used a risk based approach to help ensure that staffing levels and the staff skill mix was effective.

Is the service effective?

People received appropriate care and support because there were effective systems in place to assess, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate people's needs. People were involved throughout these processes. This ensured their needs were clearly identified and the support they received was meaningful and person centred.

Regular monitoring and reviews meant that referrals had been made to appropriate health and social care professionals and where necessary care and support had been changed to accurately reflect people's needs.

Is it caring?

People and their relatives told us staff were caring and kind. Comments included 'They are all angels', 'I see the way they interact with mum, so sensitive and warm', 'It's refreshing to see happy staff who enjoy what they do', 'This is a lovely place to live, it's my home. The staff are wonderful and I have made some good friends' and 'I cannot fault the staff, I feel reassured seeing my relative so happy and well'.

Staff had a good awareness of individuals' needs and treated people in a warm and respectful manner. We spoke with staff and asked them about their experiences with the people they supported. Comments included 'The residents mean everything to us, we want them to be happy and feel special', 'It's a pleasure to come to work and I go home feeling accomplished' and 'I feel we make a difference and people are treated like family'

The manager, team leader and staff were knowledgeable about people's lives before they started using the service. Every effort was made to enhance this knowledge so that their life experiences remained meaningful.

Is the service responsive?

Systems were in place to make sure staff learnt from significant events including accidents and incidents. Audits helped determine why a particular incident may have happened and what further action was required to help prevent reoccurrence.

People using the service and their relatives completed surveys and attended meetings throughout the year. Where suggestions and ideas were raised these were addressed and welcomed by the manager.

The systems in place for auditing the service were effective. We saw evidence where improvements had been made as a result of the audits that were completed.

Is the service well led?

Following a recent visit to the home by the Alzheimer's Society they wrote 'The staff are very aware of the consultation process and possible closure of the home and are obviously feeling anxious and sad about the future and yet there was no evidence that residents were feeling their anxiety or concerns. This is a credit to the staff team who remain professional and upbeat, continuing to provide the best possible care in a difficult situation'.

It was evident in discussions with everyone involved in this inspection that the home was proactive in wanting to strive for excellence in the services they provided and expressed their aims and objectives on how they will continue to help achieve this.

The manager and staff continued to look at the needs of people who used the service and ways to improve these so that people felt empowered to make positive changes.

5 April 2013

During a routine inspection

People in the home appeared relaxed and comfortable with the staff that supported them. We saw people being cared for at the home. Staff supported and engaged with people in a sensitive and caring manner.

People living at Woodleaze all had a diagnosis of a dementia. Clear information was in place about people's abilities to make decisions. Information had been recorded to show if people were able or not to give consent for the support and treatment affecting their health and care.

Relatives of people using the service told us that they were consulted about people's care plans and that staff contacted them to check if they were happy with the level of care their relative received.

People's special dietary needs were being met and had been recorded within care plans and risk assessments.

We found that staff were very clear about what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. Staff had completed training in this area and had clear policies and procedures to guide their practice.

We found evidence that the provider regularly assessed and monitored the quality of their service. Records about people, their needs and how staff were expected to support them were well written, sufficiently detailed, kept under review and updated when required.

The provider had a clear statement of purpose in place which set out the aims and objectives of the service.

30 August 2012

During a routine inspection

Woodleaze provides accommodation and personal care support for people living with dementia. Some people were able to talk with us about their life in the home; however, some people who have a diagnosis of dementia had limited communication and understanding.

We spent time in various parts of the home, including all communal areas so that we could observe the direct care, attention and support that people who live at this home received. People who were able to give us an opinion were happy with the care and support provided. One person told us 'It is very nice here.' Another person said 'I am alright, I have friends here.'

We also used our observations between the staff and people living at the home in order to understand their views of the people using the service. We saw staff talking with people in a polite and respectful manner, asking people about their day to day activities and choices for the day ahead. We also observed that staff were caring in their approach.

We spoke with two relatives for one of the people living at the home. They told us they were extremely happy with the care their relative received and said there had been a marked improvement in their relative's behaviour. The person was calmer and less anxious which they thought was due to staff support and knowledge. Another relative told us 'I have every faith in the staff, they are very patient and kind'.

During the visit we observed some positive interactions between people living at the home and staff. People appeared to be relaxed and at ease with staff.

We observed staff offering people choices about how and where they wanted to spend their time and what food and drinks they wanted. We also observed staff and people living at the home participating in a recreational activity. People were laughing and enjoying the activity with appropriate banter and support heard.

We spoke with three care staff during our visit. Staff were very motivated, caring and positive about working in the home and were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting.

During this inspection we identified concerns in all outcome areas including the assessment, planning and delivery of care for people that live at the home.

In view of the diagnosis of dementia and Alzheimer's, combined with the communication difficulties of people who live in the home, we relied on the care plans and associated records maintained by staff at the home. We found that records did not fully reflect the needs of people living at the home and did not take into account issues surrounding capacity and consent. Records were not monitored and reviewed to ensure that the information they contained was accurate. We found that whilst the home responded promptly to any allegations of abuse, safeguards were not in place to ensure that people's finances were safe. A key member of staff had not received protection of vulnerable adults training

.