Woodlands Care Home

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 outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

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.

The provider’s processes to ensure people received person centred care were not always effective. Care plans did not always contain sufficient guidance for staff to manage specific conditions and enable them to provide consistent support to people. Audits of care plans had not identified the lack of person-centred detail.

Whilst some sections of people’s care records were detailed around past histories, interests and hobbies, we identified that some sections were not as detailed. For example, people living with dementia had a lack of detailed information in their care plans to support staff to understand how their dementia impacted them as a person and how to support them through their dementia journey.

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 received good continuity of care because staff worked well with health and social care partners. Records in people's care plans showed visits from health professionals such as GP's and district nurses.

Partners were positive about the way the service worked with them and about the support they provided to people.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.

The provider was meeting the Accessible Information Standard. Information was made available in different formats to support people’s understanding, tailored to their individual needs.

People’s communication needs were recorded with information about how staff could effectively communicate with them. This included information on any equipment used to improve communication, glasses and hearing aids for example.

Care plans included details about the support required to assist people with communication, ensuring staff could engage and respond to each person appropriately and in an individualised way.

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.

People were provided with written information about the service and how to complain should the need arise, via the providers statement of purpose. People we spoke to told us they had not needed to make a complaint, but they told us they would feel comfortable to raise a complaint if required.

Resident meetings were held and the minutes showed how people were actively involved. For example, meal planning and different meal options, activities and life story planning. A feedback survey which sought the views of people and relatives were also seen. Both of these demonstrated the provider had listened to and taken action when suggestions were made.

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

The service ensured that people who had a disability which impacted their ability to contact health services or access health, care or wellbeing support outside of the home, or into the home if they were unable to leave, were supported to have equitable access to relevant healthcare professionals.

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.

People’s care records reflected things which were important to them, relationships they wanted to maintain, their wishes and backgrounds. Staff used this knowledge to deliver person-centred care in a respectful and inclusive manner. From our observations we saw people were treated equally.

Training records showed staff completed equality and diversity training.

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.

Records we reviewed contained information about people’s wishes in relation to where they would like to receive their end-of-life care and cardiopulmonary resuscitation decisions were clearly recorded. However, where anticipatory medicines were in place, there was no detailed information in care plans as to initiation or administration arrangements of these medicines or specialist contact details for staff to in the event of a person’s health deteriorating.

Furthermore, we identified a person’s end of life plan containing incorrect information, this plan made reference to another person’s name and that anticipatory medicines were in place when they were not.