The inspection took place on 14 December 2017 and was unannounced.

Woodland Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Woodland accommodates up to 18 people in one adapted building.

Woodland Care Home is registered to provide 24 hour care and support for adults who have physical and or mental health needs. The home is a large detached property overlooking Alexandra Park in Oldham, Lancashire and is located approximately one mile from the town centre. At the time of our inspection 17 people were living at the home but two were currently in hospital.

The previous inspection had been carried out on 01 February 2017 and was a focused inspection due to concerns we had received that there was no manager in place; staff were not recruited safely; there were not enough staff to meet people's needs; there was no hot water and that the new registered provider had installed obtrusive CCTV cameras in the home which breached the confidentiality and privacy of the people who used the service. At that inspection these concerns were looked into and found to be unsubstantiated.

There was a registered manager in place. ‘A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager was on annual leave on the day of the inspection, so this was facilitated by the team leader.

There was a policy and procedure for safeguarding, staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were confident to report any poor practice they might observe. Staff had been safely recruited and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service.

Safe systems were in place for the management of medicines at the service. General and individual risk assessments were in place and were regularly reviewed and updated. Health and safety records were complete and up to date.

The premises were safe and secure, with key pad locks on the doors and CCTV cameras were in place outside the home to help ensure the safety of the people who used the service. There was also an internal camera which looked into the office. We have made a recommendation about consulting CQC guidance around the use of CCTV in care homes.

Staff had a thorough induction programme and training was on-going to help keep their skills and knowledge current. We have made a recommendation about implementing a staff supervision programme.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were addressed and the food was plentiful and nutritious. People’s health needs were clearly documented and people were supported to access health care services as required.

The service was working within the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People told us staff were kind and caring. We observed staff throughout the day and saw interactions between staff and people who used the service were warm and friendly. People’s dignity and privacy were respected.

People were involved with care planning, reviews and meetings about their care delivery. Residents’ meetings were held on a regular basis and there was a service user guide with information about the service.

People were given choices in all aspects of their lives. Care plans were person-centred and included people’s goals and aspirations. Reviews of care and support were undertaken regularly.

People who used the service were supported to undertake activities both within the home and in the local community. People had advance care plans in place, setting out how

This inspection took place on 1 February 2017 and was unannounced. This meant the registered provider and staff did not know we would be visiting. When we last inspected Woodland Care Home in February 2016 we rated the service as ‘good’ and did not find any breaches. Since that time the service has changed ownership and we received anonymous concerns that there was no manager in place; staff were not recruited safely; there were not enough staff to meet people’s needs; there was no hot water and that the new registered provider had installed obtrusive CCTV cameras in the home which breached the confidentiality and privacy of the people who used the service. This inspection was a focused inspection to look at the ratings for safe and well led, and to look at the issues raised.

Woodland Residential Care Home is registered to provide 24 hour care and support for up to 18 adults who have physical and or mental health needs. The home is a large detached property overlooking Alexandra Park in Oldham, Lancashire and is located approximately one mile from the town centre. At the time of our inspection 16 people were living at the home.

There was no registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The home had an assistant manager who was acting as an interim manager and we saw evidence to show that this person had begun the process of registering as the manager with the Care Quality Commission.

We saw that there were enough staff to meet the needs of the people who used the service, but one person told us that there was not a lot for them to do. We saw that the service had taken steps to employ a new member of staff to provide meaningful activities and trips out of the home for people who used the service.

Safety checks, such as reference checks, were made for the safe recruitment of staff. There were sufficient checks to ensure that new staff had the right skills knowledge and character to work with vulnerable people. The staff we spoke to knew how to protect people from abuse and there were policies and procedures in place to safeguard vulnerable adults.

We asked people if they felt the home was warm and they told us that they felt it was maintained at a comfortable temperature, one person told us that “the water is OK. It’s warm enough for me to bathe in”.

People were free to walk freely around the building. CCTV cameras outside the home ensured the safety of the people who used the service and one internal camera looked into the office to ensure data protection but was not intrusive for people who used the service.

We saw the home had a range of policies and procedures to ensure the safety and well-being of people who used the service and the staff we spoke to were familiar with these.

The people we spoke with spoke positively about the interim manager. Staff told us that the interim manager was supportive and approachable, and believed the staff worked well together. People who used the service told us that if they had an issue the interim manager would help them and address the problem.

Although the interim manager had only recently begun their duties we saw that they had taken steps to implement quality assurance checks to monitor and improve the service. They regularly communicated with the registered provider who would visit the service on a monthly basis to carry out her own audits of service delivery.

The registered provider had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications. This meant we could check that appropriate action had been taken.