The Woodlarks Centre

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 64 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices. People’s needs in relation to how they spent their time were not always holistically assessed and responded to. People’s care records did not always highlight if an activities timetable would be of benefit to them or list the groups facilitated at Woodlarks which they had a particular interest in. Whilst some people were supported to go out to pursue specific interests during the day, there was a lack of opportunity for others. For example, where people attended colleges or term time only groups, alternatives had not been planned during the long summer break. This meant they were spending the majority of their time at Woodlarks unless they were going out with their families.

Care records did not demonstrate how people’s preferences and options regarding how they would like to do their personal shopping for items such as clothes and toiletries were explored with them. For the majority of people’s care records we reviewed, people’s relatives brought their personal items for them or toiletries from a central store at the service were available.

There were few opportunities available regarding how people spent their time in the evenings with the majority of people retiring to their rooms before 7pm. The registered manager told us they believed this had started during the Covid 19 lockdowns and had become people’s preference. However, there was limited evidence as to what had been offered to people as alternatives or of people going out in the evenings unless with their relatives. Some people we spoke with told us they preferred to spend time in their room in the evening and found this relaxing. Feedback from others indicated they would welcome a more social environment or the opportunity to go out in the evenings.

In other instances, we found people were supported to do things they enjoyed. One person was supported to meet a friend in the local town and do some personal shopping and another person enjoyed taking walks locally with staff. Some people attended college courses, and a small group of people went sailing regularly.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined up. The registered manager understood how to access health service and worked alongside health and social care professionals. In addition, the service worked closely with the private physiotherapy service based at Woodlarks. People and their relatives told us they found this a valuable resource in enabling them to both maintain and increase their mobility.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information displayed in the home was available in pictorial and written formats. There was good signage to help people orientate to the different areas and specific rooms. However, despite seeing some people’s care records stated they used Makaton to communicate, we did not see this being used by staff during our inspection. This meant there was a risk people would not be able to fully communicate their needs and wishes to staff. Makaton is a unique communication programme that uses symbols, signs and speech to enable people to communicate. The deputy manager told us they were reviewing how staff were trained in the use of Makaton to increase how this was used in the home. Where people used other alternative communication methods such as communication boards, we observed staff to understand and respect this.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas. The registered manager told us they held residents’ meetings where people could share their feedback. However, records showed no meetings had taken place for almost a year. The registered manager told us this was due to the person who usually ran the meeting not being able to do so. On the second day of our inspection, we noted a residents’ meeting had been planned and advertised around the home. There was limited opportunities for people to be involved in other aspects of how the home was run such as involvement in staff interviews and appraisals. The registered manager told us people had been involved on occasions, but this was not a regular practice. They told us they would look to incorporate this into their processes going forward.

The provider had a complaints process in place and relatives told us they felt any concerns would be taken seriously and responded to. One relative told us, “If ever I have had a concern, it has been dealt with effectively. For example, there was [a concern] and I reported it. We had a meeting, and they changed the procedure, so it is now working well.” A complaints log was maintained which showed that concerns were investigated and responded to in a timely manner.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Referrals for additional support and health care were made as and when required and staff supported people to attend appointments. The provider had considered people’s needs in relation to the home environment to ensure all areas were accessible to those with a range of needs. For example, technology had been used to enable doors to more private areas of the home were operated using facial recognition. This meant people felt secure but were able to remain independent.

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. Staff had a good understanding of the potential inequalities people living in the service may face. They were aware of people’s religious and cultural needs and people received support in these areas. The staff team told us they felt all cultures were respected across the home.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, including at the end of their life. Records showed people’s needs and wishes were discussed with them and their relatives appropriately. Staff worked alongside the community nursing team to enable people to be supported in their home where this was their wish. We observed relatives had sent thank you cards to staff in acknowledgement of the care provided to their loved ones at the end of their life.