What the CQC found at Woodfield House

People told inspectors they felt safe and staff understood safeguarding procedures. There had been no safeguarding concerns in the previous 12 months.

“People told us they felt safe and the staff had received safeguarding adults training and understood how to protect people from harm.” from the report

Medicines were locked away, temperatures were checked and the stocks inspected matched the administration records. Staffing levels were reviewed against people's needs and people said there were enough staff.

“Medicines were safely stored in a locked cupboard and the temperature was taken daily and recorded.” from the report

People described the home as their home and said staff were kind. Staff gave examples of protecting privacy and allowing people time to make choices.

“People told us the service felt like home and staff were kind to them.” from the report

Records showed regular involvement from mental health professionals and support with doctors, dentists, opticians and blood tests. People were also supported with activities such as volunteering, college and social outings.

“Records showed the service supported people with both their mental health and physical health needs.” from the report

Staff had regular supervision and meetings, and said they could contribute ideas. Health and social care professionals gave positive feedback about the management.

“Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and staff spoke well of the registered manager.” from the report

Staff gave inspectors different information about whether one person could leave the home alone. The records and planning did not clearly explain the risks, the person's progress or whether restrictions were legally authorised.

“This meant a person whilst not formally restricted by a locked door was aware they were "not allowed" to go out alone and so were effectively restricted.” from the report

Staff were not fully clear about the Mental Capacity Act. At the time of the visit, staff had not been trained in epilepsy or managing behaviours that can challenge, although further training evidence was sent afterwards.

“We also noted from this document that staff had not been trained in managing people with behaviours that can challenge” from the report

Some records were old, undated, duplicated or contradictory. This meant summaries did not always reflect people's current needs, although the manager later said outdated information had been moved to storage.

“We discussed the issue of files having duplicate and at times contradictory information on them.” from the report

The home had sought feedback, but did not record enough information about who responded or use comments in its improvement plan. Inspectors recommended a more effective feedback system.

“There was no co-ordinated system for evaluating feedback on the service from a range of people who either worked with, or lived at the service.” from the report

A staff member was overheard discussing a person's private affairs on the phone. Inspectors also felt that personal hygiene issues raised in residents' meetings should have been recorded more sensitively.

“We heard one staff member talking on the phone in the kitchen discussing a person's personal affairs” from the report