Woodside Nursing 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 inspection we rated this key question 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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. One person told us, “I have breakfast in bed and get up about 11 o’clock which is my choice.” A relative told us, “[Person] could choose their bedtimes, what to eat and drink and how to spend their day.” People had access to male or female care workers in line with their preferences. Staff we spoke with were aware of people’s individual preferences. For example, one staff member told us how a person liked to be dressed and how they liked their hair and make-up done when they had visitors, which was in line with information in the person’s care plan we reviewed.

However, we identified, in one person’s care plan and their daily notes records, there was an interchange between the use of ‘him’ and ‘her’ as pronouns, which was not in line with the gender identity of the person and could cause distress to the person. We fed this back to the provider who was going to review the information in the documents and remind staff about use of preferred pronouns in care records. Staff we spoke with were aware of the preferred gender identity of the person and addressed the person in line with their wishes.

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 and leaders told us about the various partners they worked with, and we saw evidence of this through communication and referrals to other health and social care providers. A partner told us, “I have been very impressed by Woodside’s care records and completion of necessary capacity assessments. They are very organised and seem to have a good set up with reviewing care plans and risk assessments regularly (for the people that I have seen).”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We observed one person who had a white board in their room with all their important appointments written down. A staff member gave an example of where they had supported a person who was non-verbal, and they showed pictures so the person could nod or shake their head. The provider had an Accessible Information Standards (AIS) policy and people’s communication needs were documented in care plans. For example, one care plan stated, “[Person] can only read big letters, staff to support with this.” There was also evidence in people’s care plans about hearing and sight impairments.

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 completed annual feedback surveys with people living in the service and acted on the feedback by completing an analysis of the information and putting an action plan in place. For example, where people had raised concerns about support to access hobbies of their own choice, the provider created a well-being rota for one-to-one activities. This allowed people to have focussed time to spend with the service’s well-being coordinator on activities they enjoyed.

People knew how to raise a concern about the service. Where a person had raised a concern, they told us this had now been resolved, and they were happy with the support they received from the service. We saw a response to a complaint that had been made to the service, and this had been sent within the designated timeframes identified in the provider’s complaint policy. The provider’s website signposted people to the service’s complaint policy.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. There was evidence of the service contacting professionals on people’s behalf and there was access to a variety of services. There was evidence of NHS physiotherapists supporting people with their mobility needs and one person told us they paid for a private physiotherapist to work with them more frequently. Another person told us they had been supported by staff at the service to access an optician’s appointment. The service also provided staff escorts and access to transportation for any appointments outside of the service. The environment was not a barrier to people with mobility needs and corridors and access points were accessible. A lift was available to allow people, staff and relatives to move between floors, if required.

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. One person told us, “They make sure my wheelchair is charged every night so I can use it first thing in the morning, and I also check they have put it on charge.” Staff had received training in equality and diversity, and leaders were alert to the discrimination and inequalities people living in the service could face. People’s care plans contained information about people’s wishes in relation to how their social, cultural and spiritual needs should be met.

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 showed an awareness of how to treat people receiving end of life care. For example, one staff member told us, “We must treat people the same, we shouldn’t leave them alone. If they cannot talk, they can still hear us, we can hold their hand, talk to them, play nice music, do their mouth care and we make sure the family are involved in their care too.” Care plans contained planning for the future details where people had consented to discussing the information. One care plan had information about the person’s wishes in relation to where they wanted to reside when they came to the end of their life, who they wanted to be with them and their specific funeral plan details.