Archived: Woodcote Hall

Updated 18 January 2019

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 inspection took place on the 26 November 2018 and was unannounced

Our inspection was comprehensive and was carried out by two inspectors, a specialist advisor with a background in nursing and an Expert by Experience. An Expert-by-Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service, in this instance their experience was residential care services.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed all the information we held on the service including the previous Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR along with other information we held, including statutory notifications which the provider had submitted. Statutory notifications are pieces of information about important events which took place at the service, for example, safeguarding incidents, which the provider is required to send to us by law. We looked at the notifications we had received and reviewed all the intelligence CQC held to help us make a judgement about this service.

We spoke with seven people who live at Woodcote Hall and four visiting family members. Some people living at the service were living with dementia and could not tell us about their experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). This is a way of observing care which, helps us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.

We also spoke to a GP, a district nurse and 10 staff members including care assistants, senior care, activities co-ordinators, housekeeping, estates management as well as deputy managers and the registered manager for the service. We looked at various records held by the service including four care files, two staff files, staff training matrix, completed audits, health and safety records and the complaints file.

Following the inspection, we also spoke with the local authority.

Updated 18 January 2019

The inspection was carried out on 26 November 2018 and was unannounced.

Woodcote Hall is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to a maximum of 56 people. There were 51 people living at the home at the time of our inspection, some of whom were living with dementia. There was a registered manager in post who was present during the inspection. 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.

At our last inspection we found that improvements were required. At this inspection we have found that the provider has made considerable progress but that there were still areas they needed to address in order to be rated as good overall. Following this inspection, the home continues to be rated as requires improvement.

People were supported to make decisions for themselves and where necessary best interest meetings were held however the staff were not able to locate all associated paperwork in a timely manner.

People were supported to have their personal care needs met however they did not always receive sufficient stimulation throughout the day.

People received sufficient food and drink however the meal time experience could be improved to ensure people were always given choice.

The environment had been improved and refurbishment was taking place however there was still an unpleasant odour that fluctuated during the day.

People's received their medicine from staff who had been assessed as competent to manage medicines safely.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the services and was working through actions identified from the previous inspection and other audits completed in the home.

People were protected from harm or abuse by staff who knew how to recognise and report concerns. Staff were aware of the risks associated with people's needs and how to minimise these risks.

The management analysed the information to identify any trends and action required to prevent reoccurrence. The provider had safe recruitment procedures in which ensured that prospective new staff were suitable to work with people living at the home.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. Staff received training relevant to their roles and felt supported by the registered manager.

People were supported by staff who were caring and kind. People were supported by staff who knew them well and who had access to up to date information about their needs.

People and their families were encouraged to give feedback on the quality of the service and to make suggestions for improvement. The provider had a clear complaints process and addressed concerns in a timely manner, sharing information with the local authority as necessary.