Woodheyes

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We observed person-centred care being delivered consistently throughout the service. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of the people they supported, including their individual likes, dislikes, and daily routines. People were actively involved in day-to-day decisions about their care, and we saw staff offering meaningful choices and responding to preferences in practice.

For example, staff prepared breakfasts based on what people chose on the day, rather than following a fixed menu. This flexible and responsive approach supported people’s independence and ensured their wishes were respected. Overall, staff interactions reflected a commitment to promoting choice, autonomy, and personalised care.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care was delivered by a stable and consistent core team of long-serving staff, which supported continuity and familiarity for people using the service. While agency staff were occasionally used to maintain safe staffing levels, this was managed carefully. The service primarily sourced agency staff from the same provider, and wherever possible, the same agency workers were deployed regularly. This helped ensure staff were familiar with people’s needs, routines, and preferences, reducing disruption and supporting consistent, integrated care.

External partners told us they felt the home worked collaboratively with them to ensure people’s needs were met. Care plans demonstrated input from people’s representatives was sought and considered when planning and reviewing care. Staff were kept regularly informed of any changes to people’s care and support needs, and relevant information was recorded and readily available to be shared with relevant health and social care professionals. When people attended external appointments, they were supported by staff who accompanied them to help clearly communicate their needs and preferences, ensuring they were actively involved in discussions and decisions about their care and treatment.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Individuals had comprehensive communication assessments in place, which directly informed their personalised care plans. These assessments clearly identified each person’s preferred communication methods, any barriers to communication, and the level of support required. They also provided detailed guidance for staff on how to present information effectively, adapt their approach, and utilise relevant tools or strategies to ensure individuals could both express their needs clearly and fully understand the information shared with them.

The provider could not clearly demonstrate they understood the Accessible Information Standard. These standards state that providers of publicly funded adult social care are legally obliged to ensure people with disabilities or sensory loss receive information they can understand, with the right communication support. However, measures were in place to support people’s communication needs. Easy-read menus with pictures of food were available to residents where required, and information about the complaints process and ways to provide feedback was accessible to everyone at the front of the home. These adjustments helped support people to make informed choices, with reasonable adaptations in place to meet their needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People’s views had been gathered through residents’ meetings, which were held regularly. These opportunities enabled individuals to express their views on how well the service responded to their needs and preferences. Feedback was used to identify any changes required to ensure care remained person-centred and responsive to people’s needs and likes.

People and their relatives told us they would not hesitate to raise concerns if needed. One person said, “We haven’t complained. We would speak to the manager if it was called for.” Relatives also told us they would approach the registered manager if they had any concerns about the care being provided.

Any complaints received had been recorded and investigated in line with the provider’s complaints policy and procedures.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment theyneeded when they needed it.

There was no evidence of discrimination, and people had equitable access to the service. Staff and management worked flexibly to meet people’s individual needs. External partners told us they felt the service was accessible to everyone, with 1 commenting staff were “very responsive and work well with us.”

Staff always had access to management support through a 24-hour on-call system. This ensured guidance and decision-making support were available outside of normal working hours, enabling staff to respond promptly and effectively to any concerns, incidents, or changes in people’s needs.

People were able to move freely throughout the home and access the back garden independently. The environment had been adapted to meet both general accessibility requirements and individual people’s needs, supporting comfort, safety, and independence. Externally, the home benefited from two large garden areas, which were well-maintained and accessible. Outdoor lighting was in place to support safe use of these spaces during darker hours. The provider took a balanced approach to safety and security, ensuring people were protected while also promoting independence and freedom of movement.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced positive and equitable outcomes, and their access to care and support was not restricted by their individual needs. Staff had received training in equity and diversity, which supported their understanding of people’s protected characteristics and equality-related needs. Staff told us they felt confident in applying this knowledge in practice, enabling them to provide person-centred care that respected individuality and promoted inclusive experiences for everyone.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s end-of-life wishes were considered and planned for on an individual basis. Discussions about preferences and expectations took place at the pre-admission stage with people and, where relevant, their families or representatives. Records showed RESPECT forms (people’s wishes regarding medical care are recorded when they are unable to express them in the future) were in place, along with documented funeral arrangements where these had been shared. Several relatives told us their loved ones’ wishes had been discussed, respected, and recorded, providing reassurance care would be delivered in line with people’s preferences and values at the end of their life.