Woodland Hall

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 service met people’s needs. The last rating for this key question was Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us they received continuity of care and felt comfortable talking to staff. A person said, “If I need to discuss my care, it would be with nurses. They are very good and I trust them.”

The provider helped to make sure people could access the services they needed in the community. This included liaising with different healthcare professionals and providing support for people to attend appointments. Families were welcome to visit at any time and were able to be involved in people’s care, eat with people and to stay at the service if their relative was unwell or at the end of their lives.

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.

People told us they received continuity of care and felt comfortable talking to staff. A person said, “If I need to discuss my care, it would be with nurses. They are very good and I trust them.”

The provider helped to make sure people could access the services they needed in the community. This included liaising with different healthcare professionals and providing support for people to attend appointments. Families were welcome to visit at any time and were able to be involved in people’s care, eat with people and to stay at the service if their relative was unwell or at the end of their lives.

Accurate and up-to-date information was provided in formats that were tailored to people’s individual needs. Staff supported people to communicate by using their preferred method of communication. There were notice boards in the home which were regularly updated to give people, visitors and staff information about the running of the home such as the staff who were on duty that day, meal menus and available activities.

The provider met the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard. Systems were in place to hold confidential information and the provider had systems to ensure compliance with the UK General Data Protection Regulations (UK GDPR). Service records were kept locked away or password protected on electronic devices. This helped to ensure people’s private and sensitive information was only shared with authorised persons.

People and relatives told us they had the information they needed. They knew who the registered manager was and who to contact if needed.

People were encouraged to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care.

A complaints poster was on display in the home. The service had a complaints and concerns log to ensure these were recorded, investigated, resolved and lessons had been learned.

Staff were responsive to people’s needs and took appropriate action to help ensure people received effective care and support. Staff received support and training to help them enhance communication with people.

People’s communication needs were documented in their care plan. This provided information about people’s individual needs and included information about how the person communicates and details of how to communicate with them.

People were supported to access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. A system was in place to support people to access health care providers. Information was readily available to people, relatives and staff as required.

A GP visited the service regularly to oversee people’s medical needs. The palliative care team and tissue viability nurses regularly attended the service to offer advice to nursing staff.

Staff carried out regular checks on people to make sure they were happy and safe. The environment was accessible for people with physical disabilities to move safely around. There were grab rails, ramps, good lighting and accessible bathrooms.

Feedback from an external health and social care professionals indicated that people were supported to access the care and support they needed.

People had their human rights and diversity respected and were treated with compassion by staff. People’s diverse needs and wishes were assessed, documented and respected. There was an equality and diversity policy and procedure in place and staff had received training to understand this.

Care plans contained information about people’s spiritual and cultural needs. This helped staff understand people’s specific cultural heritage and spiritual needs and wishes.

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.

Staff had completed training to understand about providing sensitive end of life care. They worked with external professionals to monitor people’s needs and to make sure appropriate changes and adaptations were made when people needed these.