Woodside Nursing Home

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 that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last inspection 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 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People and their relatives told us people’s needs had been assessed prior to moving into the service. Staff told us, “Before a resident comes to the home, we will get the pre-admission information, based on that risk assessments and care plans are put together and shared with staff about their preferences, likes, dislikes, mobility, sleeping patterns, social life, so that everybody can support the resident.” Leaders explained, “People who were planning to live in the service and their relatives were invited to attend a pre-admission assessment for all relevant information to be shared. There was also a 4-week review where people and relatives were able to discuss any concerns, discuss what is going well or anyway in which the service can improve the care and support provided.”

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.

One person told us they had their diabetes monitored regularly by the service and their local GP. There was evidence of regular communication with other professionals on behalf of people to ensure their needs were being met. For example, clinical staff had identified in a person’s care plan they were at high risk of a stroke. There was evidence of emergency services being contacted when the person displayed signs of a stroke. Staff showed an awareness of people’s dietary needs where people had specific diagnosis of diabetes or needed different levels of food or drink textures. The service had evidence-based information embedded into their care planning system. For example, we saw evidence of peoples diagnosed conditions in their care plans, with actions for staff to follow in line with national evidence-based guidance.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. People told us they had access to the services needed such as a GP, physiotherapy and nurses. One person told us, “The GP comes on a Thursday, and you just say you would like to see them. I have also had my eyes tested.” Staff told us there were good working relationships with partners who visited the service to support people with their additional needs. Partners provided positive comments about the working relationships between them and the service. One partner’s feedback included, “I feel Woodside is a well-run, and led nursing home, with a fantastic enthusiastic and friendly nursing team, which I feel incredible proud to work alongside.” Leaders told us they had good working relationships with partners and knew who they needed to refer to. The provider had other services locally and utilised staff from other services when needed. There was evidence of referrals to other services where appropriate.

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. People had access to regular food, drinks and activities. We observed regular fluids being offered to people throughout the day. Most people spoke positively about the choice of food and snacks available to them. People were encouraged to access the service’s communal areas and there was access to outside areas. One person told us, “I go out in taxis to visit the pub and socialise.” We saw evidence of one-to-one activities being provided to people in their room where people chose not to or were unable to access communal areas. There was also scheduled activities which people had access to, although one person told us, “Some of the activities are not suitable for me but they are good for people with dementia.” Partners provided positive feedback which included, “All nurses and carers really know their patients and as a partner this is invaluable. This leads to better care as it means changes are noticed early, escalated in the right way and acted on so nothing is missed.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People and their relatives told us they had been involved in setting up and reviewing their care plans. There was evidence of reviews being completed when people’s needs changed. Records to monitor safe practices were completed and the nurses based within the service oversaw people’s needs and monitored their outcomes. The service completed regular feedback with people about their care needs and how the service was working for them.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People told us they were well-informed, and staff asked for consent before providing personal care. Staff and leaders were aware of their responsibilities in relation to consent from people using the service and followed the principles outlined in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). People’s capacity had been assessed where required in line with national guidance and where people had been assessed as lacking capacity, relatives and professionals had been involved in the best interest decision process.