Woodside Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

We observed positive, kind and respectful interactions between people and staff.People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Comments included, “[Staff] would do anything for me”, “They are caring and look after [person] well” and, “[Staff] are very pleasant, happy and always encouraging people”.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals and make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. For example, staff recorded the food and fluid intake of all people living at the home as a blanket practice, even when there was no identified risk. People also had regular checks which were continued even when they had requested not to be disturbed, were able to use their call bell and had consented to having a sensor mat to reduce the risk of falls. This meant people’s individual preferences were not always respected.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, and people did not always have full choice and control over their care and wellbeing.

There was an activities schedule with a planner for the month. However, people and relatives told us there were not always enough activities, particularly outings. This was also reflected in records we reviewed. The registered manager told us they were gathering feedback from people to better tailor activities to people’s preferences, and to increase trips out. People were unable to freely access the garden or outside spaces, as the garden was not secure. This meant people’s freedom of movement was restricted and reduced their independence. The provider was in the process of addressing this and shared their action plan with us.

The provider mostly listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. However, we saw staff were not always able to respond to people’s immediate needs due to staff availability. Despite this, when staff were available, they responded to people promptly and showed they listened to and understood people’s needs. For example, when a person appeared to be feeling distressed, staff supported them to listen to music in their headphones and danced with them. This reflected guidance in the person’s support plan, feedback from staff about how they supported the person to reduce distress, and the person immediately appeared less distressed. Staff showed genuine concern and care for people’s wellbeing.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff wellbeing was regularly discussed at staff meetings and during supervisions and appraisals. When leaders had concerns about staff welfare, this was discussed at supervisions and appraisals.