Woody Point is a residential care home registered to provide support to five people with a learning disability. People using the service were unable to communicate their views to us verbally. We carried out observations and spoke with health professionals involved in people’s care to come to an understanding about the support they received.

At the last inspection on 11 March 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Action was taken by the service to ensure people were kept safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed.

Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.

Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. Appropriate checks were carried out on prospective staff to ensure that they were of good character.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and were enabled to live as independently as possible.

The service had processes in place to gain the feedback on the quality of the care people received and this was used to inform changes where appropriate.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People and other appropriate professionals were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were enabled to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

There was a complaints procedure in place and those involved in people’s care knew how to complain.

The registered manager promoted a culture of openness and honesty within the service. Staff and other appropriate professionals were invited to take part in discussions about shaping the future of the service.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Woody Point is a residential care home registered to provide support to five people with a learning disability. People using the service were unable to communicate their views to us verbally. We carried out observations and spoke with health professionals involved in people’s care to come to an understanding about the support they received.

At the last inspection on 11 March 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Action was taken by the service to ensure people were kept safe. Risks to people were appropriately planned for and managed.

Medicines were stored, managed and administered safely.

Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their role effectively. Appropriate checks were carried out on prospective staff to ensure that they were of good character.

People received appropriate support to maintain healthy nutrition and hydration.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were treated with kindness, respect and were enabled to live as independently as possible.

The service had processes in place to gain the feedback on the quality of the care people received and this was used to inform changes where appropriate.

People received personalised care that met their individual needs and preferences. People and other appropriate professionals were actively involved in the planning of their care. People were enabled to access meaningful activities and follow their individual interests.

There was a complaints procedure in place and those involved in people’s care knew how to complain.

The registered manager promoted a culture of openness and honesty within the service. Staff and other appropriate professionals were invited to take part in discussions about shaping the future of the service.

There was a robust quality assurance system in place and shortfalls identified were promptly acted on to improve the service.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

At the time of our inspection visit, the four people using the service were out at day service. We were told by staff that these people may not have been able to communicate verbally their views on the service, had they been present. This was corroborated by looking at care records. We looked at the care records for all four people using the service. In addition, we reviewed audit records, complaints records and staff rotas. We considered our inspection findings to answer five key questions; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? and is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found during our inspection;

Is the service safe?

We found that people using the service were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection, as appropriate measures were in place to control this risk. We found that people were cared for in a clean and hygienic environment.

We reviewed the fire safety checks undertaken by a nominated member of staff at the service. We found that these had been completed on a weekly basis, and this ensured that people would be alerted promptly if there was a fire at the service. This protected people from the risk of coming to harm in the event of a fire.

We reviewed the staff rota for the month prior to our visit. We found that in this month, there had been enough staff to meet people's needs and protect their welfare. All four people using the service required one to one care, and we found that they had received this in the month prior to our inspection. The service had in place a contingency plan to maintain the staff numbers at a safe level.

We checked to see if anyone using the service was subject to a deprivation of liberty safeguard at the time of visit, and we found that no one using the service was at the time of visit. The service had in place appropriate policies and procedures in order to protect people from having their liberty unlawfully restricted.

Is the service effective?

Care records we reviewed indicated that people's care was planned and delivered in a way which promoted their dignity and ensured their safety and welfare. These records had been reviewed and updated as needed, and we were told by staff that new updated paperwork was just being completed for each person using the service.

Is the service caring?

We found that each of the four care records we reviewed contained detailed information about the person. This included information about how they communicated, what they liked to do with their time, their past history and how staff could support them to live their life as they wished.

The service was unable to offer people the opportunity to complete satisfaction questionnaires, as they would be unable to provide responses to direct questions about their experiences. However, staff told us that they were able to tell when people were happy and when they weren't, just by observing their behaviour and interaction with others.

Is the service responsive?

People using the service had opportunities to partake in a number of different activities throughout the day and evening. All four people were supported to attend a day centre on weekdays, and there was information in their care records about what they liked doing at other times.

People's care records indicated that staff took the appropriate action in a prompt manner where concerns about a person’s wellbeing or care were identified. This included seeking advice and support from healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists and mental health professionals where needed.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system in place to identify shortfalls in service provision. This included a programme of audits and checks which were completed regularly to ensure the quality of the service provided to people..

We saw the care plans for the four people using the service and saw that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People were cared for within a secure and homely environment that met their needs.

People’s health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others.

People using the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had appropriate policies, practices and staff training in place to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

Effective recruitment and selection processes, with appropriate checks undertaken before new staff took up their appointments, ensured that people were cared for by suitable and appropriately skilled staff. This was confirmed by the records that we saw and in our conversations with the two care staff on duty.

We met three of the four people using the service. We observed that they had good relationships with the staff.

We met the four people who used the service and spent time observing their morning routine while they were preparing to attend their day centres. Two people communicated with us verbally and by using their preferred methods signs and gestures. Two people answered, "Yes," when we asked if they liked living in the service.

One person showed us their bedroom, the laundry and the bathrooms. They told us that they preferred to use the bath rather than the shower. With the assistance of a staff member they told us about the television programmes that they enjoyed.

Another person told us, "I like the food," and, "I like to cook cakes." We saw that the staff offered people choices of what they wanted to eat and drink during our visit.

One person chose not to attend their day centre and this was respected.

We looked at the care records of four people who used the service and found that they experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights.

People told us that they liked living at Woody Point. They liked the food and their rooms.