Woodlands Court Care 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 remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 50 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs had been assessed; however, this information had not always been used effectively to develop care plans that supported staff to meet people’s needs safely.

Where attempts had been made to update care plans, there was a lack of clear guidance from the provider on how care plans should be structured. This meant information was not always easy to find or follow, which could impact on how staff delivered care.

There was also no clear evidence to show that people had been involved in developing their care plans or asked whether they were happy with the information recorded about them. This meant people were not always actively involved in planning their care and support.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider used evidence-based assessment tools to review people’s needs. However, care and treatment were not always delivered in line with best practice guidance. For example, people living with dementia were asked to make choices about their meals a day in advance, which did not support them to make meaningful choices at the time.

Although people’s needs had been assessed, this information was not consistently used to develop clear and effective care plans. This meant staff did not always have the guidance they needed to deliver care in line with current standards.

We also found that advice from external healthcare professionals had not always been followed, which reduced opportunities to improve people’s care and outcomes. For example, one healthcare professional had advised a person be hoisted into a comfortable chair. This had not been done and meant the person had been restricted to their bed.

In addition, people living with dementia were not always supported to make meaningful choices about their meals. People were asked to choose their meals a day in advance, which did not follow best practice guidance, as it may limit their ability to make informed choices at the time.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Staff and management did not always work effectively with other professionals to ensure people received safe and timely care. For example, there were delays in acting on guidance from external professionals, including where a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application had been identified as required but was not submitted in a timely way. This meant appropriate legal protections were not always put in place when needed.

This showed a lack of effective communication and coordination with external services, which had an impact on people’s care and treatment.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were not always supported to live healthier lives.

There was no clear evidence to show that people had been involved in planning their own care. This meant people were not always supported to make informed choices about their health and wellbeing.

People were also not consistently supported to make healthier choices. For example, people living with dementia were not provided with visual aids, such as show plates, to support them to make decisions about their meals. This meant opportunities to promote independence and healthier choices were missed.

In addition, activities were not always planned in a way that supported people to maintain their movement, independence and abilities. This placed people at risk of a decline in their physical health and wellbeing.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Systems to monitor and improve outcomes for people were not always effective.

Care records did not consistently show that people’s health and wellbeing were routinely monitored. There was also a lack of clear information about expected outcomes, which meant it was not always possible to measure whether people’s care and support had been effective.

In addition, there was no evidence to show that the views of people living at the home had been gathered. This meant the provider and staff did not fully understand what people expected from their care or whether their needs and preferences were being met.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People were not always supported in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Where people had restrictions in place, there was no evidence of Mental Capacity Assessments or Best Interest decisions being completed. This meant it was not always clear whether restrictions were lawful or in people’s best interests.

In addition, care plans described some actions as restrictions rather than clearly explaining how these measures supported people to remain safe. This showed a lack of understanding of how to appropriately record and justify restrictive practices.

The provider’s accessibility policy stated that people would be supported to make informed decisions, and that the service would act in line with best interest principles when people lacked capacity. However, this was not always reflected in practice.