What the CQC found at Woodford House

Inspectors found that medicines were generally stored, administered and recorded safely. When needed medicines were given, staff recorded why they were used and whether they worked.

“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely and securely.” from the report

Staff had received safeguarding training and said they knew how to raise concerns. The registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding team when concerns were identified.

“People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training in safeguarding and told us they understood how and where to raise concerns about people.” from the report

People were supported to eat and drink enough. The chef understood people's dietary needs, including adapted food for swallowing difficulties and diabetic diets.

“People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.” from the report

During the inspection, inspectors saw call bells answered promptly and people were not left waiting for support.

“During our inspection we observed call bells being answered in a timely manner, and people not waiting for support.” from the report

Care plans did not give staff enough guidance about several serious health risks. This included dialysis, diabetes, epilepsy, constipation and mental health conditions.

“People were at risk of receiving unsafe care as significant risks to their safety had not been mitigated against.” from the report

Some people were referred to by room numbers and some appeared unkempt or wore clothes that were not their own. Inspectors also found an overpowering smell of urine in communal areas.

“Some people looked visibly unkempt, with un-brushed hair and stained clothes.” from the report

Some staff lacked training in learning disabilities, autism, mental capacity and fire safety. Agency staff were not given enough information about people's health and care needs, and recruitment checks were incomplete.

“The induction for new agency staff was not robust enough to ensure that they could safely meet peoples care needs.” from the report

Care plans were basic and did not explain how people preferred to be supported. Relatives said some people had little or no meaningful activity, including people living with dementia or a learning disability.

“People did not always receive personalised, person-centred care specific to their needs.” from the report

Complaints were not always recorded, investigated or used to improve care. Relatives also reported repeatedly being unable to contact the home by telephone.

“There was not an effective system in place to document and respond to complaints.” from the report

Audits did not lead to clear actions or deadlines, and important problems remained unresolved. Incident records and quality checks were not reliable.

“The leadership and oversight at the service was not adequate to identify and implement improvements to the service and ensure people received safe consistent support.” from the report