We carried out an unannounced inspection of Woodside Home for Older People on 26 and 27 February 2018.

Woodside Home for Older People is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to a maximum of 46 people. The home is divided into four areas known as Alder Close, Beech Close, Cedar Close and Damson Close. Beech Close provides care for older people living with dementia and all other areas provide support for older people with personal care needs. At time of the inspection there were 41 people accommodated in the home.

At the last inspection, in December 2015 the service was rated as good. At this inspection, we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

The provider continued to ensure people were safe. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs and ensure their safety. Appropriate recruitment procedures were followed to ensure prospective staff were suitable to work in the home. People received their medicines when they needed them from staff who had been trained and had their competency checked. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People were kept safe from abuse and harm and staff knew how to report any suspicions around abuse. Staff understood best practice for reducing the risk of infection and audits were carried out to ensure the environment was clean and safe.

The provider continued to provide effective care and support. 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. Staff received effective training to meet people's needs. An induction and training programme was in place for all staff. A detailed pre-admission assessment was carried out to assess people’s needs and preferences prior to moving into the home. This meant that care outcomes were planned and staff understood what support each person required. People's nutritional needs were monitored and reviewed. People were given a choice of meals and staff knew people's likes and dislikes. The registered manager and staff worked in close collaboration with healthcare professionals to ensure people’s medical needs were met.

The provider continued to provide a caring service. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion in their day to day care. Staff knew people's needs well and people told us they valued and liked their care staff. People and their relatives were consulted around their care and support and their views were acted upon. People's dignity and privacy was respected and upheld and staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

The provider continued to provide a responsive service. Care and support was planned and personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. People were given the opportunity to participate in social activities both inside and outside the home. People had access to a complaints procedure and were confident any concerns would be taken seriously and acted upon. Where people received end of life care this was planned and

provided sensitively.

The provider continued to provide a service, which was well led. There were effective systems for assessing, monitoring and developing the quality of the service being provided to people. This incl

We carried out an inspection of Woodside Home for Older People on 22 and 23 December 2015. The first day was unannounced. We last inspected the home on 13 May 2014 and found the service was meeting the regulations that were applicable at that time.

Woodside Home for Older People is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 45 older people. Accommodation is on two floors linked by a passenger lift. The home has four separate units known as Alder Close, Beech Close, Cedar Close and Damson Close. Beech Close provides care for older people living with dementia. The home is located close to Padiham town centre and has an enclosed garden with raised flower beds and benches.

The service was managed by a registered manager. 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.

During this inspection we found the service was meeting the current regulations.

People living in the home told us they felt safe and well cared for. We found there were enough staff to support people effectively. The staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of the people and knew how to recognise signs of abuse. The registered manager followed a robust recruitment procedure to ensure new staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The premises and equipment were appropriately maintained and we noted safety checks were carried out on a regular basis. Risks to people’s health and safety had been identified, assessed and managed safely.

Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that people’s rights were protected where they were unable to make decisions for themselves.

People had their nutritional needs met and were offered a choice at every meal time. People were offered a varied diet and were provided with sufficient drinks and snacks.

Staff were able to maintain and develop their skills by on-going training. Staff spoken with confirmed they had access to range of learning opportunities and told us they were well supported by the registered manager and management team.

The staff were caring, positive, encouraging and attentive when communicating

and supporting people. Visitors were made welcome in the home and people were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Care records and risk assessments were person-centred and were an accurate reflection of the person’s care and support needs. The care plans were written with the person, so they were able to influence the delivery of their care. The care plans included the person’s likes and preferences and were reviewed regularly to reflect changes to the person’s needs and circumstances. People had good access to healthcare professionals.

People knew how to raise concerns and complaints if they needed to. Appropriate action was taken to address issues that were raised. People’s views of the service were sought and responded to appropriately.

There was an open and friendly atmosphere in the home, which showed the staff and registered manager had good relationships and knew the people well. We observed staff supporting people with respect whilst assisting them to maintain their independence.

All people, their relatives and staff spoken with had confidence in the registered manager and felt the home had clear leadership. We found there were effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service, which included feedback from people living in the home and their relatives.

During our inspection we spoke with 11 people living in the home on three different units. All people spoken with expressed a high level of satisfaction with the service, one person said; “I really like living here, the staff are lovely” and another person commented; “I can’t fault it at all, I feel very settled”. Relatives spoken with were also complimentary about the service, one relative told us; “I cannot speak highly enough of them, the staff are brilliant and very caring”.

People’s care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments and daily care records. We looked at four people’s care plans during the visit and noted they were comprehensive and covered all aspects of need.

People were satisfied with the food provided. There was a choice of meals and people confirmed the food was of a good quality and there was always plenty to eat. Drinks and snacks were served throughout the day or on request.

Staff were provided with appropriate training opportunities and received regular supervision. All staff spoken with told us they were well supported in their role and they enjoyed their work.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service. People were asked their opinion of the service on an ongoing basis and were given feedback about the action taken in response to any suggestions.

People were satisfied with the service provided, one person told us, “It is a lovely place and the staff are very nice” and another person said, “I’m well looked after and everyone is very friendly and caring”. People told us their rights to privacy, dignity and independence were upheld and respected.

People’s care was planned and delivered in accordance with their needs. People had detailed individual care plans which were supported by a series of risk assessments. We saw evidence that people had discussed their care plans with staff and they had signed the plans wherever possible to indicate their agreement.

We found staff had received training on safeguarding vulnerable adults and had access to appropriate policies and procedures. Staff had an understanding of the safeguarding processes and knew how to raise an alert.

We noted suitable arrangements were in place to handle and manage medication. All records looked at were complete and up to date and checks were carried out on a weekly basis to ensure medication was handled correctly and safely.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People made complimentary comments about the staff team and staff were observed to have a respectful and sensitive approach to meeting people’s needs.

We found there were established systems to monitor the quality and operation of the service. We saw evidence to demonstrate that people were regularly consulted about their opinion of the service and their comments were used to shape future developments in the home.

Woodside Home for Older People is a care home for up to 44 older people. At the time of our visit there were 40 people accommodated in the home with one additional person in hospital. The home is located close to the centre of Padiham. Accommodation is on two floors linked by a passenger lift. The home has four separate units known as Alder Close, Beech Close, Cedar Close and Damson Close. Beech Close provides care for older people with dementia.

We spoke with 17 people who lived in the home. All told us they were happy with the service and they felt safe and well cared for. One person told us, “It’s nice here” and another commented, “We are treated well”. Staff had received training on how to recognise signs of abuse and possible harm and knew what to do if they had any concerns.

We found people needs were assessed before they started to use the service. Care records were personalised and identified people’s personal preferences about how they liked their care and support to be delivered.People were supported to access health care and where people had existing health conditions they were supported to manage these. People received care from staff who had received the training they needed to deliver care and they were well supported through supervision and appraisal.

People were served a variety of nutritious meals and were offered a choice each meal time. Whilst people living on Alder Close had received a hot drink, they waited over two hours for their breakfast. People told us they would like their breakfast earlier. The manager agreed to consult people in order to make the necessary changes.

Staff observed during our visit were caring. We observed positive interactions between staff and the people they supported. Staff spoken with had a good understanding of both people’s care and support needs; and their individual preferences. People were listened to and encouraged to express their views about their care and support.

The care provided was responsive to changes to people’s individual needs. If a person’s care needs changed, staff responded promptly to ensure appropriate care and support was provided. People were invited to regular residents’ meetings and feedback was given about what action had been taken following any suggestions for improvement.

The home had appropriate paperwork in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. (The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards provide a legal framework to protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty for their own safety). Although there had been no applications made to the local authority, staff and the registered manager had been trained to understand when an application should be made.

The service had an established registered manager in post. There were clear management structures offering support and leadership. We saw there were arrangements in place to check the quality and safety of the service provided. This included regular audits and consultation with people living in the home and their relatives.