Woodview House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider's needs assessment process ensured a person centred and holistic approach to assessing people's needs and effective outcomes were achieved.

People's relatives told us they were involved in their family member's care and with people’s care plan reviews. They said the way reviews were drawn up, helped their family members to achieve their maximum potential. One relative said, "They do invite me to [family member's] care reviews.” Another told us, “I always get an invite to the reviews, and I can always talk to staff and the registered manager about their [family member’s] care and support."

Health and social care professionals said the process of assessment and support used in planning people's care was good. They told us," Staff are well trained and knowledgeable."

People's care plans included their life history, healthcare conditions, care needs, the support they required, likes and dislikes. The information was used to plan and deliver people’s care and support.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We received consistent positive feedback from people and their relatives about the quality of food served at the home. One relative said, “The food is so good, ridiculously good, [my relative] even has a belly now.”

We observed the mealtime experience and found staff treated people with dignity and respect when they were assisted to eat.

If people were not eating meals they had chosen, staff offered them alternatives.

If people chose to leave the dining room during a meal, we observed staff supporting this and they encouraged people to continue their meals when they were ready to return.

Where people were at risk of weight loss or there were concerns about fluid intake, accurate records were maintained of the person’s intake.

Where people required their food to be provided in a different format to avoid choking, we saw this was provided.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

We observed staff worked well together to help deliver people’s day to day support. Comments from staff included, “We get on and work well together” and “There is good teamwork here.” People’s relatives were also keen to tell us they felt staff worked with them as part of a team to provide good care. One relative told us, “They always share information with us, involve us and involve relevant professionals at the right time.”

.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We saw people looked well cared for and happy. People and relatives told us they had no concerns with the support their family members received with healthcare. They said the home would contact a health professional if needed.

The provider had an activities staff member who was employed to plan and provide people with meaningful activities to ensure their hobbies and interests were maintained.

People’s needs were assessed to identify any concerns regarding their health and well-being. Staff knew people well and could explain how they supported people to live a healthy life and provide meaningful activities to promote people’s well-being.

The service worked with healthcare services to meet people’s health needs including arranging and supporting people to attend health appointments.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People and their relatives were provided with opportunities to speak up about the care and support to ensure it was meeting their needs. Relatives of people told us they were part of their family member’s care planning. Care plans provided information for staff to meet people’s needs with regards to agreed care plan objectives. People and relatives were positive about the care provided.

Managers told us they routinely checked people were satisfied with the service. People and their relatives were provided with feedback surveys. Here they could state their preferences and opinions on the care they received and on upcoming and past events/activities in and out of the home.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to understand their rights. People were provided with opportunities to discuss their views and wishes. People told us they felt they were included with decision making regarding their care and support.

Staff told us where people had the capacity to do so they were encouraged to make their own decisions and wherever possible this was done together with their relatives. Where people did not have capacity, they supported people in their best interests. Care plans demonstrated the Mental Capacity Act had been followed, and where necessary, a mental capacity assessment had been completed. Staff had received training around the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

Where the home had placed restrictions on people, appropriate authorisation to do so was sought. The registered manager maintained oversight of these authorisations and applied to renew them in a timely manner.