We carried out a responsive follow up review on the 05 November 2013, to judge compliance with compliance actions made at a responsive review visit made on the 10 May 2013. We judged the service non-compliant with Regulation 13 Management of Medicines, Regulation 20 Records, Regulation 21 Requirements relating to workers, and Regulation 22 Staffing. Warning notices were served requiring compliance with the regulations by 31 January 2014.

We carried out a responsive follow up review visit on the 03 March 2014, in order to see what improvements had been made and to judge whether the service was compliant with Regulations 13, 20, 21 and 22. During the visit we spoke with the provider and two members of the care staff.

We found at this visit that improvements had been made as follows: to ensure safe administration of medicines; a thorough recruitment procedure had been implemented; staff training had been improved; and the keeping of records required by the regulation had improved.

We carried out a responsive review to this service on the 10 May 2013, as we had received information of concern in relation to medication administration; staffing requirements, including staff training; and the failure to not informing the Commission of an incident that involved contacting the Police. We judged the service non-compliant with the regulations and five compliance actions were made at that time. We asked the provider to send us an action plan, which would detail and tell us what action was being taken to address these areas of non-compliance. To date, no action plan has been received.

We carried out a responsive follow up review on the 05 November 2013, in order to check compliance with the regulations. During the visit we spoke with the registered provider and members of staff.

We found at this visit unsafe administration of medicines. This included unsatisfactory medicine administration procedures, inaccurate recording of medicines and a lack of evidence to show that staff had received appropriate training in medicine administration.

Staff recruitment records did not contain all necessary information, and criminal record checks had still not been sent for at the time of the visit.

Staff training records and discussions with staff showed that little mandatory training had been undertaken by staff since the visit May 2013.

We found overall that the service was non-compliant with Regulations 13, 20, 21 and 23, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

Where areas of non-compliance have been identified during inspection they are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

We carried out a responsive review to this service on the 10 May 2013, as we had received information of concern in relation to medication administration; staffing requirements, (that included staff training); and the failure to not informing the Commission of an incident that involved contacting the Police.

During the visit we spoke with the registered provider and members of staff. Staff were knowledgeable about how to support each person in ways that were right for them. The staff spoken with were able to discuss the needs of people using the service and ways in which individuals were supported.

We found unsafe administration of medicines. This included unsatisfactory medication administration procedures, inaccurate recording of medicines and a lack of evidence to show that staff had received appropriate training in medication administration. Staff recruitment records did not contain all necessary information and staff training records were incomplete.

We found overall that the service was non-compliant with Regulations 13, 18, 20, 21 and 23, of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010.

Where areas of non-compliance have been identified during inspection they are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.

The people that use the service at Woodlands Villa have mental heath difficulties, therefore not everyone wanted to tell us about their experiences.

The people who lived at the home said and showed by their relaxed manner that staff were kind and attentive.

People indicated that they liked living at the home and enjoyed the activities that they took part in. The staff supporting them knew what support they needed and they respected their wishes if they wanted to manage on their own. The support that we saw being given to people matched what their care plan said they needed.