Wood Cottage

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 the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. For example, specific care plans required were not in place, however, the information was captured amongst other care plans. The management worked with the positive behavioural support (PBS) team and reviewed the PBS plans annually. However, people, relatives or staff were not involved in this annual review.

People’s bedrooms were personalised and had their own belongings around them. Where people had communication difficulties, there was comprehensive information about their communication styles and how to understand their responses. Personal information was in place to ensure staff understood people and had an insight into their life history.

Information on people's past lives was recorded to assist staff to better understand them. Staff understood the value of person-centred care and supporting people to make their own decisions and choices. The staff and service manager were open to ideas around creating a visual staff rota to support a person to see photos of staff who was supporting them next.

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. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s needs and continuity of care. Staff worked well with other agencies.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs. People’s care plans included details of their communication needs and preferences. Some information was available in a range of formats, for example, service information and health appointments. Relatives told us they received good communication from the management team. The registered manager was mindful information relating just to staff was displayed discretely, which respected Wood Cottage was people’s home.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider welcomed feedback from staff, relatives and people. The registered manager and service manager was very active and visible in the home, and we observed warm and trusting interactions between them and people. The provider had carried out surveys to seek relatives’ and staff views and had followed up on any actions had been raised.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider had considered accessibility and inclusion when planning care delivery. Staff understood the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. People had freedom to move around the home and access a range of communal areas and thegarden. People had access to their own car, which meant they could access the community, attend health appointments and the barbers with ease and support with the day-to-day housekeeping of the home, such as shopping for food or other items the home needed.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were not always 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.

People did not have end of life care plans in place. The provider had not considered or documented the decisions or established what steps would be taken if there was an emergency. The registered manager and service manager had made plans to revisit the subject in the future with family involvement.