Woodward Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care under a contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.

Woodward Court is registered to provide a service to 28 older people. Accommodation is provided on two floors in four separate units and provides a combination of assessment, respite (short term) and long term care. The service also operates a day centre which is not regulated by CQC. At the time of the inspection 22 people were using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

This inspection took place on 12 March 2018 and was unannounced which meant the provider did not know we would be visiting.

A registered manager was 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.

People felt safe and systems were in place to make sure risk was assessed and managed. Staffing arrangements were appropriate and ensured people received care from a consistent workforce. Medicines well managed safely.

Staff felt well supported in their role and had received training and supervision which ensured they understood how to do their job well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People’s nutritional and health needs were met. People lived in a comfortable and pleasant environment.

People told us staff were kind and caring. We saw staff interactions were person centred and they knew the people they were supporting well. People were kept informed of their rights and what to expect when they used the service.

People’s care was planned and delivered in a way that met their needs. People enjoyed individual and group activities. Concerns and complaints were investigated and responded to. Any learning was captured.

The service was well led. The registered manager was knowledgeable about the day to day running of the service as well as their overall legal responsibilities. They were supported by an effective management team. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and people were encouraged to share their views to help drive improvement.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We talked with two people who lived at Woodward Court. Some people with dementia were not able to tell us about their experience of living in the home but we observed positive interactions between people and staff. We talked with two visiting relatives, one told us, "The staff are very friendly and efficient, you're made to feel welcome and you can have a bit of fun". We spoke with six staff and the manager and deputy manager and found that staff were knowledgeable about the needs of people and took pride in their work.

On the day of the inspection, refurbishment work was taking place inside the building and in the garden. The manager explained how the changes would benefit people who lived in the home and we saw that risk assessments had been undertaken to manage the impact of the work on people to minimise any distress or further confusion.

We found that different dietary needs of people were met and there was a choice of food for each meal. One person told us, "The food's smashing here and there's plenty of it".

We observed that Woodward Court was clean and well maintained. Staff understood infection control procedures and there were clear protocols in place to reduce the risk of infection.

We found that required checks had been made on staff as part of the recruitment process, an induction programme was provided and staff were supported to develop and update their skills.

We saw that records were well maintained, up to date and stored appropriately.

During our visit we spoke with two people who lived at Woodward Court. They told us they were happy with the care they received and could make decisions about what they did.

Some people with dementia were not able to tell us about their experience of living at the home. We therefore used a number of different methods to help us understand people’s experiences. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us

We spoke with two relatives during our visit. Both told us they were involved in making decisions about their relatives care and treatment. They said staff were kind, approachable and patient. One relative told us they liked the happy and calm atmosphere in the home.

We inspected Woodward Court on 6 and 9 February 2015 and the visit was unannounced.

Woodward Court provides accommodation and personal care for a maximum of 28 older people in single rooms. Accommodation is provided on two floors in four separate units and provides a combination of respite (short term) and long term care. The home also operates a day centre. The home is situated in Allerton, a residential area of Bradford.

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.

We found before anyone is admitted to the service an assessment of their needs was completed. This made sure the service could meet their needs and the information was used to identify any potential risks and to formulate a care plan. People’s care records and risk assessments were kept up to date and reflected people’s current needs. The records showed where individual risks had been identified action had been taken to reduce or remove them.

Staff told us about safeguarding procedures and were able to tell us warning signs they looked out for and about the different types of abuse. Information about safeguarding and who to contact was available and accessible to staff. The rotas showed us sufficient numbers of suitably trained staff were deployed to meet people’s needs and safeguard them from risks.

People’s medicines were not always administered in a safe way. A nominated person supported people one at a time with their medicines. People received their medicines in line with their prescription. We saw people were asked if they wanted pain relief medicine when they showed signs of being in pain. When people received a medicine that was to be administered as and when required, the reason for administration was not recorded.

We saw staff followed people’s care records. People told us they were involved and supported with their care records and staff had a good knowledge about them. Care records were person centred and reviewed on a regular basis or when someone’s needs had changed. Care plans included direction from health professionals when required. We saw people were supported to work with health professionals to receive on-going health care support. Care plans included people’s personal preferences, likes and dislikes. People and their families had signed to say they supported the care records.

People told us the food was good and we saw plenty of drinks on offer. People who required a specific diet due to their culture, preference or ability received such a diet. Food looked plentiful and hot from a balanced menu. People could have an alternative meal if they did not like the food on the menu.

We spent time observing care and support being given. Staff were respectful and were aware of people’s dignity. Staff had developed relationships with people so they appeared relaxed and shared jokes together. Staff would tell people what they were doing before they did it. If people refused they were sometimes prompted again and then their decision was respected.

The service had a complaints procedure in place. Complaints were recorded, analysed, responded to and learnt from. Complaints and accident and incidents were monitored to look for any trends. The service sent out an annual questionnaire to people and their relatives. Responses were looked at to see what improvements could be made to the service and quality of care.

Staff told us they felt supported by the management and they had confidence if they mentioned a concern to the registered manager, it would be taken seriously and action would follow. People and their relatives told us they liked the registered manager and felt issues would be looked into. The registered manager ensured a robust programme of quality assurance was in place. We saw regular quality audits fed information into an action plan. The action plan was followed through to make changes.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the DoLS (Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards) which applies to care homes. We saw authorisation referrals had been made for people that had been deprived of their liberty.