Woodlands is a care home providing residential support for up to six young adults with mild to moderate learning disabilities and mental health and behavioural needs.

At the last inspection, the service was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

Why the service is rated Good:

People were supported by staff who took time to develop positive relationships with them. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and people’s consent was sought before care or support was provided.

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. Where staff were required to restrict someone’s liberty in order to keep them safe, a clear protocol was in place which had been agreed by the person and relevant external professionals. Only staff members with the required training and competence could use it. Staffing levels were planned according to individual’s needs and wishes and were flexible to accommodate any changes.

People were empowered to make decisions about their care and support and were encouraged to contribute to their care plans and risk assessments. This helped ensure guidance for staff was based on each person’s preferences. People were regularly consulted for their views of their support and of the service. Staff and the registered manager listened to these and made changes where appropriate. If changes couldn’t be made they explained why.

People told us they were able to eat what they wanted, when they wanted. Some people chose to cook together and others cooked for themselves. Staff were aware of how to support each person to eat a balanced diet and maintain their health. People were supported to see external health professionals when required.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely and had an understanding of how to protect people from abuse. People were supported to take risks to retain their independence and any hazards were discussed with people and measures to mitigate these were agreed. Medicines were managed safely by trained staff.

Staff received regular training to help ensure the care they provided was based on best practice. They also received regular one to one supervision from the manager which included discussion of their role and responsibilities as well as observation of their work. This helped ensure staff remained focused on providing personalised care and the values of the service were upheld.

The registered manager was visible in the service and through team mettings and staff supervisions and observations, ensured the culture in the service was person centred. They were supported by the provider who monitored the quality of the service and took action when gaps or shortfalls were identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

On the day of our visit we were told that there were four people living at Woodlands. We spoke with four staff members which included the registered manager, three people that used the service, looked at four people’s care files in detail and looked at quality monitoring systems.

We observed staff supporting people in a friendly and respectful manner. One person told us “I know what’s going on and the staff help me plan my day.”

We saw that anyone who moved into the home had their needs assessed before a place was offered. We looked at four care plans and found that they were detailed and personal to the individual. One person said “I helped write my care plan.”

The people living at the Woodlands were supported by a team of staff that were trained and supported by the organisation. Comments included “this is a nice place to work.” And “it’s very rewarding.”

Staff monitored the service on a regular basis and involved people, family and other professionals in this process.

We conducted an unannounced visit to Woodlands on the 15th May 2012, as part of our schedule of planned inspections.

During our visit we were able to spend time speaking to people who lived at the home as well as observing the care and support being provided by staff.

We spoke with the acting manager and staff on duty and also met with one of the Operations managers for the organisation.

We looked at people's care records and following our visit spoke to relatives and other agencies about their experiences and views about the service.

We saw several examples of people being supported and encouraged to make choices about their care and lifestyle.

One person had their own weekly activities plan as they liked to make choices and have a record of what they would be doing each week.

We observed the manager providing information to a person who had recently moved into the service.

We were told that people are invited to visit the service before moving in. However, we were concerned that a person who had chosen not to visit had not been provided with sufficient information to fully understand that they were moving to a very different type of location, which may impact on their lifestyle and daily routines.

We were told that the service had a ' Non alcohol policy' and that this meant that people were not allowed to bring alcohol onto the premises. We saw in records that this had been agreed with one person as part of their care plan. However, another person using the service was not allowed to drink alcohol on the premises but did not have this documented as part of their care plan or care arrangements.

It was not clear why this policy was in place or if people are informed of this restriction before moving to the service.

During our visit we looked at the care records for one person who had recently moved into the service. We were told that this person had moved from another service also owned and run by the Regard Partnership Limited. Although care records and a discharge plan had been sent by the previous service the Manager and staff at Woodlands had not been part of this process. The manager at Woodlands had not completed a pre-admission assessment for the move to the new service. Details about the person needs and wishes should be gathered by the service before someone moves in so that they are sure that people's needs can be met.

Following the visit we spoke to other agencies about their views of the service. We were told that there had been recent improvements in the care being provided and the environment. It was felt that this was due to changes in management since Christmas 2011.

One Care Manager we spoke to did express concern that a new person had moved into the service without them being informed as this was not in line with the care plan agreements of people already using the service.

We saw that people were encouraged to develop their daily living skills. A self contained flat was available within the home and was used by people who were looking to eventually move into a more independent setting.

One person we spoke with said that they did their own cooking and cleaning in their flat, but had support and assistance from staff when they need it.

We found that people engage in a range of activities inside and outside the home.

One person we spoke to said that they had regular voluntary work in the local town and were also being supported by staff to find paid employment.

Records and discussion confirmed that people enjoyed a range of social activities relevant to their age.

One person we spoke to said that they enjoy bowling and regular visits home to family.

The staff we spoke to were able to tell us about different types of abuse and what they needed to do to keep people safe. They were able to tell us what they would do if they suspected that abuse had occurred.

Staff we spoke to said that they felt well supported by their colleagues and the manager. Two members of staff said that there had been positive improvements in the home since the current manager was appointed. We were told that supervision was now taking place on a regular basis and training needs were being discussed within these meetings.

We could see that staff had completed mandatory training such as Health and Safety and Fire awareness. However, records did not confirm that staff had undertaken any recent training specific to the needs of people they support. The manager said that gaps in training was being looked at as a priority and we were able to see that some specialised training had been arranged.

Relatives we spoke to said " The staff are really lovely, and always make me feel welcome".

Relatives we spoke to also said that they had noticed recent improvements in the standard of the environment.

The inspection took place on the 1 & 2 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Woodlands provides care and accommodation for up to six people. On the day of the inspection six people were living at the service. Woodlands provides care for adults with a learning disability and associated conditions such as autism.

The service had 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.

People, their relatives and other agencies spoke highly of the care provided at Woodlands. Comments included, “I like it here, the staff are nice, they talk about things I might be worried about”, and “My keyworker helps me in meetings and helps me think about my goals”. Relatives said, “The staff are brilliant, yes, I think they really care”. Staff from other agencies gave positive feedback about the staff and management team.

People and their relatives said they felt the service and care provided was safe. Recruitment practices ensured staff working in the home were fit and appropriate to work with vulnerable peoples. Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident any allegations made would be appropriately investigated to help ensure people were protected.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. Staff recognised people’s rights to make choices and to take everyday risks. They said “We support people to take risks, we guide people about what is safe and appropriate”.

People had their medicines managed safely, and received their medicines on time and in a way they chose and preferred. People’s health and well- being was considered important and systems were in place so staff could recognise changes in people’s health and take prompt action when required.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and support plans included clear information about how people chose and preferred to be supported. We observed several examples of people being supported to make choices and have control over their care and lifestyle. For example, we saw people choosing when to get up, what to eat and how to occupy their time. We also saw staff responding in a caring and compassionate manner to requests for advice or support and asking for people’s consent before supporting people with their medicines and personal care.

The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.

There was a positive culture within the service, the management team provided strong leadership and led by example. The registered manager had clear visions, values and enthusiasm about how they wished the service to be provided and these values were shared with the whole staff team. Staff had clearly adopted the same ethos and enthusiasm and this showed in the way they cared for people. Staff demonstrated they understood the principles of individualised, person centred care by talking to us about how they met people’s care and support needs. They spoke with commitment and used words like, ‘individual’, and ‘personalised’ when they talked about the people they supported.

The registered manager took an active role within the home. There were clear lines of accountability and responsibility within the management structure and tasks were delegated to help ensure the smooth and efficient running of the service. Comments from staff included, “The manager is really good, I can talk to him about anything at any time”, and “The manager and other senior staff are very supportive”. Relatives told us, “The manager is excellent, really good at working with other agencies to do the best for clients”.

The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to seek their advice about current practice and to help monitor the support arrangements of people who lived at the home. Health and social care professionals were mainly positive about the service and said there had been a positive shift in relation to partnership working by the service and management. Comments included, “The manager always makes themselves available, and leads the team of staff well”.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the standards of care provided. Learning from incidents, feedback and complaints had been used to help drive continuous improvement across the service.