Wood Close

We assessed the home against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the home service was meeting this guidance.

People were supported by staff who knew how to keep them safe. A member of staff told us, “I've had safeguarding training and it's up to do to date. We have a safeguarding policy, and we inform the managers if we feel someone is at risk. If we are not happy with the response [from the managers] we can call the local authority or police. The phone numbers are in the policy.”

The registered manager and their staff knew people well and ensured that care delivery systems, including risk assessments, were in place which were regularly audited.

Staff were recruited safely into the home. This included having robust shortlisting and interviewing procedures and documentation, gaining references from previous employers, completing a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check, and checking right to work status. DBS checks provide information, including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. This meant appointable staff members were of good character to work with vulnerable people.

Staff turnover was low meaning people had access to support from staff they knew and knew them. A family member told us, “There are consistent staff, I have no concerns.” Staff received the training they required to provide the care that people needed. A healthcare professional told us, “The staff at Wood Close are well-trained, highly knowledgeable about their clients, and committed to person-centred care, recognising that one size does not fit all."

Medication was ordered and stored in line with good practice. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff who were responsible for administering people medicines were trained and had their competency assessed.

The home was clean and tidy. A relative told us, “Oh my god it [the home] is spotless, and always in good repair.”

The service worked in partnership with healthcare professionals, this meant that people’s care plans had the information they needed to provide the care people wanted and required. A social care professional [SK1]told us, “The working relationship I have with Wood Close is very successful. Every email I send is responded to appropriately and in a timely fashion. I have built a great rapport with staff. They have the information that I require when I visit and if they don’t, they will email it to me shortly after my visit.” A healthcare professional told us, “They respond to required actions and maintain thorough, detailed records regarding the individuals in their care.”

The service followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people needed to have restrictions in place, to keep them safe, this was done in their best interests and followed correct legal procedures, known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Care plans were person-centred and up to date. Work was being done so that all information available was consistent across different documents.

Staff told us they like working at the service and working for the organisation. One member of staff told us, “They care about the support we give. They give us lots of training, they look after you.” Staff told us they liked the managers, they were approachable, listen and are responsive. One staff member told us, “If we tell them something, they do something about it.”

The registered manager had oversight of the home and was working with their line manager to ensure they were able to use electronic information systems to further improve this oversight. A healthcare professional told us, “They are observant, consistently proactive in referring clients to our team, and quick to seek advice when needed. They are a deeply caring manager who knows the residents inside and out, ensuring they are kept safe and protected from any form of abuse.”

Regular audits were completed to identify any issues within the service. The registered manager ensured that these issues were resolved. There were systems in place to record accidents and incidents and care changed as a result to prevent recurrence.

The registered manager had an open-door policy and had sought feedback from relatives, staff and professionals and this was acted upon. A relative told us, “We have surveys most years, which we complete. I see the manager on a regular basis, sometimes my daughter or my son goes to the home, they [the registered manager] are quite open with them.” Another told us, “I do work with them. I haven’t really raised any concerns. I may come up with a suggestion about my loved one’s care, they try it. If it doesn’t work, then we try something else, we work together.”