Wood Cottage

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them, relatives or advocates. For example, people were being supported without condition specific care plans. Care plans reviewed were not evidencing involvement with people, relatives, advocates or key workers. The registered manager provided evidence to state people, relatives, advocates and key workers would be included in reviews of care and treatment moving forward.

Relatives spoke positively about their loved one’s experiences moving into the home. Comments included, “During a difficult time they have made me, and [Person] feel like family. [Person] is settled and the team are amazing and have made it easier, especially the support during the transition from one service to another.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider supported people in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice including ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance. Care records provided evidence to show good practice guidance was followed. Where monitoring was required, staff maintained clear records.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. There was evidence of good team working within the service and with external partners. The provider employed specialist professionals and support was readily available to the home. There were good links with families and other health and social care professionals. Staff felt supported, valued and included in the day to day running of the home. Comments included, “There is good teamwork, everyone works together to make it a happy place. The house is much more like a home and a nice place for people to live.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Systems were in place to ensure people had access to specialist support. Where people’s needs changed referrals were made promptly. People were supported well to maintain healthy lifestyles. For example, 1 person had been on a weight reducing plan and staff had supported them with a healthy diet and increased opportunities for exercise. Staff told us this contributed to the person’s wellbeing and quality of life significantly improving. People were involved in shopping and preparing meals and snacks and offered healthy and nutritious choices. A relative told us, “[Person] can go on lots of new walks since he has had his car and goes to many nice places further away.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, the staff were using learning logs when introducing people to activities, hobbies and promoting independence in their home and these were being used to track progress, staff approach and consistency to promote independence.

Processes were in place to evidence people’s care and support was monitored. For example, where required, people’s weights and their nutrition and hydration intake was checked and monitored. Where people presented with periods of distressed behaviours, records were reviewed by the provider’s specialist positive behaviour support team to ensure staff received support in recognising any potential themes or triggers and plans of care could be updated. Relatives told us about examples where outcomes for people had improved, which enhanced their lives.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. For example, mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were undertaken by the management, there was no involvement with people, relatives, advocates or staff. Staff communicated with people about their choices using objects of reference, visual aids, Makaton and clear information. This supported people to tell staff about what they wanted. We observed staff routinely offering choice and people being in control.