CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands - Innova House CLD
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines management, improved risk assessments and better investigations of accidents and incidents. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had received relevant training and regular supervision. People had access to health professionals, and decisions were made in line with the Mental Capacity Act, but support with healthy food choices was not always consistent for one person.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described and observed as kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in decisions, communication methods were adapted to their needs and there were no unnecessary restrictions on visits from friends or relatives.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and needs, and people had access to varied activities. The home had accessible complaints information and processes for responding to complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was more stable and quality checks had been overhauled. Inspectors found that audits identified improvements and that learning from incidents was now being used.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Woodlands - Innova House CLD was rated Good; inspectors found safer, kinder and more person-centred care, with some further work needed on healthy food support.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 15 and 21 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff recruitment, training, medicines, audits, complaints and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines management, improved care planning, better staff training and more effective checks on accidents and incidents.
The rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The provider had previously breached five regulations. Inspectors found that improvements had been made in all five areas, although one person still needed more consistent support to make healthy food choices.
Improved safety
The home had improved its risk assessments, incident reviews, safeguarding processes and approach to physical intervention. Inspectors found that restraint and incidents had reduced.
“People were now protected from the risk of avoidable harm and abuse and staff understood how to act on any concerns.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were well completed, medicines were securely stored and there was clearer guidance for medicines given when needed.
“People's medicine administration records were well completed and recorded when they had taken or refused to take their medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed warm and friendly relationships. Staff listened to people, respected their privacy and supported them to express their views.
“We found staff treated people well, with respect and dignity and listened to what they had to say.” from the report
More meaningful activities
People had access to activities linked to their interests, both at home and in the community. Their independence was encouraged in everyday tasks.
“People could access a wide variety of external activities including attendance at locally run events for people with a learning disability.” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home had introduced more effective audits and clearer reviews after incidents. Staff said the service had improved and that management support was available.
“An overhaul of all quality assurance processes had taken place.” from the report
Healthy food support was not always consistent
needs fixingOne person who did not fully understand the risks of unhealthy food choices was not always supported consistently. Some staff allowed a period of high-fat food and takeaways when the person's key worker was absent.
“However, we did note that one person who did not fully understand the risks about making poor food choices did not always receive the support they needed from staff.” from the report
Accessible information review still under way
minorSome easy-read information was available, but the review of support plans and other documents for continued accessibility was not yet complete.
“The registered manager told us they were in the process of reviewing how people's support plans and other documentation were presented to ensure continued compliance with the AIS.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure healthy eating plans are followed consistently when a person's key worker is not on duty?
- 02How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed, and how are changes shared with all staff?
- 03What refresher training do staff receive about physical intervention and supporting behaviour that may challenge?
- 04How will you finish and check the review of easy-read care plans and other information?
- 05How are families involved when care, health or dietary needs change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas and checking improvements after five breaches found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff and some improvements during the visits, but people faced risks from weak care plans, medicines processes and management checks.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out over three visits in March and May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and checks on how the home was run.
The home supported up to nine people with learning disabilities. Seven people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found staff were often kind, respectful and supportive of independence. People could access health professionals, and there were usually enough staff for planned one-to-one or two-to-one support.
However, important information in care plans was missing, inaccurate or out of date. This included information about risks, health conditions, medicines, physical intervention and people's preferences. Staff did not always have the training or guidance needed for complex needs, and people were not always supported with healthy food, activities or involvement in care planning.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. The home had been rated Requires Improvement at the previous inspection too. Inspectors found breaches of regulations and issued a warning notice about the home's systems for checking quality, safety and risks.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly and caring interactions. People were treated with dignity, privacy and respect.
“Throughout the day we observed caring friendly and good natured interactions between staff and the people they supported.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to make everyday choices and take part in daily living tasks such as laundry and preparing meals.
“People were supported to be independent.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People were supported to attend health appointments, and staff sought advice from outside professionals when needs changed.
“People were supported with their day to day healthcare.” from the report
Planned staffing for high support needs
Records showed that the planned level of one-to-one or two-to-one support was available when people needed it.
“Records showed the required number of staff were available to provide people with their one or two to one support.” from the report
Risks and care plans
seriousCare plans did not always contain enough detail about self-harm, seizures, physical intervention or other risks. Staff did not always follow the guidance that was available.
“This failure to follow guidance placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Medicines
seriousChecks for people who self-administered medicines were not always in place. Instructions for 'as needed' medicines did not clearly explain when they should be used or what should be tried first.
“Medicines were not always managed safely, although people we spoke with were satisfied they received their medicines in a safe and timely manner.” from the report
Staff skills and consistency
needs fixingStaff did not receive all the training needed for people's complex needs. Agency staff were sometimes used, which could affect consistent support.
“Staff were not given training on all of the needs of individuals” from the report
Food and nutrition
needs fixingThere was no reliable menu planning to make sure people received a healthy, balanced diet. One person's eating and drinking plan did not include important information about their behaviour around food.
“There was a lack of menu planning in the houses to ensure people were eating a well-balanced healthy diet.” from the report
Activities and community life
needs fixingPeople were not always supported to take part in meaningful activities or go into the community as planned. New activity choice boards were introduced during the inspection.
“People were not always given the opportunity to socialise and take part in activities they liked.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits and incident reviews did not reliably identify problems or make sure they were corrected. The warning notice concerned failures in the home's governance systems.
“The systems in place were not effective in identifying risks and driving improvement.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the care plans and risk assessments for self-harm, seizures, physical intervention and community safety since this inspection?
- 02How are medicines checked for people who self-administer, and what written protocols now guide 'as needed' medicines?
- 03What training have staff completed for the complex needs of the people currently living here?
- 04How do you record and monitor activities and community visits, including any hours funded for one-to-one or two-to-one support?
- 05What action was taken in response to the Regulation 17 warning notice, and how do you now check that problems are found and fixed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, accommodation and overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Woodlands - Innova House CLD
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woodlands - Innova House CLD →
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Woodlands - Innova House CLD →
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.