Woodstown House

We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.

Safety checks of the premises and equipment had been undertaken. There were evacuation plans in place in the event of a fire or other emergencies and people had personal emergency evacuation plans.

Care plans were person-centred and included information on people's risks in relation to their care. This included details on the steps staff should take to best support the individual to be safe whilst respecting their preferences.

People and their relatives told us they had access to healthcare professionals when they needed this, and care records we reviewed confirmed that healthcare professionals had been involved in people's care.

There was a range of activities available for people and this included group and one-to-one interactions. We received mixed feedback from relatives in relation to this and the provider confirmed that they were already aware and had addressed this; and they were in the process of recruiting activities staff. One relative told us, "I think they could possibly do a little more [in relation to activities]."

Staff had considered the risk of social isolation and records we reviewed confirmed that regular checks of people had been undertaken where this was appropriate.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People, their relatives and staff told us they felt there was a positive culture at the service and that the service was managed well. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided. People and

their relatives told us they knew how to complain and felt confident complaints would be listened to and addressed appropriately by the registered manager.