Woodside Lodge

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

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.

The provider was previously in breach of the regulations in relation to person-centred care and consent. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations. However, we found the provider was not always supporting people in line with the principles of the MCA.

This service scored 63 (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 assessed and reviewed people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s support plans were person-centred and included detailed information for staff on how to meet people’s needs and preferences. People we spoke with told us they felt involved in their care. When we identified some inconsistencies in records, the provider was responsive and updated these.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider had not always considered relevant best practice guidance for dementia friendly care environments. For example, clear accessible signage to support orientation. We raised this with the provider, who put up some clear signage after our site visits.

The provider used nationally recognised tools to assess people’s needs. However, they had sometimes used multiple different assessments to assess the same need, with each resulting in a different outcome for level of risk and support need. For example, risk of skin breakdown and dependency levels. This meant assessments were not always consistent and meant there was a risk people would receive inconsistent support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people and meet their needs. For example, staff received training and had their competency assessed by a registered nurse as required to administer people’s insulin as a delegated task. Records of communication with other services and professionals were clear.

The provider mostly supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The service made referrals to appropriate health professionals when people’s needs changed. We saw evidence the service acted on professional’s recommendations to effectively support people. People were supported to attend regular health checks.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. Approaches to monitoring and improving people’s care and support were not always effective. We found gaps in records in areas of care such as personal care and activities. The provider told us they thought this was due to staff recording incorrectly. However, this was not effectively monitored which meant we could not be assured people were receiving support in line with their assessed needs.

The provider did not always act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) associated code of practice. Processes and records relating to capacity assessments and best interest decision making were inconsistent. Processes for obtaining consent did not always follow current legislation and guidance

When decisions were made on people’s behalf, capacity assessments were not always completed or best interest decision making processes followed. For example, monitoring food and fluid intake and regular welfare checks. However, when capacity assessments were completed, these clearly recorded how people were supported to understand, retain and weigh up information. Decision making processes demonstrated how decisions were made in the person’s best interests, including how the person and people important to them were involved, and were the least restrictive option.

Information on consent forms was not always accurate, and consent was not always sought from the relevant people. This meant consent forms had sometimes been signed by people who did not have the legal authority to do so.

We observed staff seeking consent before supporting people. Feedback from people and their relatives included, “They always ask me first” and “Everything is [person’s] choice and decision”.