Woodleigh Rest Home Limited

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 Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 57 (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.

Overall people were happy with the care they received. Our observations showed a person-centred approach was not always followed by staff. People’s care plans were not always accurate, up to date or fully reflective of their needs. Not all staff were involved in handovers as some staff members started shifts later than others.

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 worked with a range of other health and social care professionals. A number of tools and assessments were completed with people to assess what level of support was required to meet their needs.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Some information was presented in an easy read format such as the activities planner and signage around the home. However, communication plans for people who were non-verbal needed to be clearer. Care plans were not readily shared with people or relatives, and they were not always up to date or accurate in the information they contained.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Processes were in place for people and relatives to share feedback or raise concerns. This included regular resident and relative meetings as well as individual meetings with family members. However, the registered manager acknowledged the meetings were not always documented, meaning for some meetings there were no records of what was discussed or the actions agreed.

The complaints procedure was displayed in the service. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and felt confident these would be dealt with appropriately. One relative said, “The staff will take time to listen no matter how small the problem is.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems and processes were not always effective in ensuring people experienced equality in the care and support they received. While the service was physically accessible to people, further improvements were needed to ensure that care was consistently person-centred and responsive to individual needs. Further improvements in oversight and monitoring is required to ensure all people, including those with additional needs, receive equitable care and have prompt access to assistance at all times.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

For example, 1 person who was unable to communicate verbally due to a medical condition, did not have their care or support tailored in line to meet their unique requirements. The care plan provided incorrect information for staff about communication methods. We saw the frustration the person experienced as they struggled to communicate their needs with staff. Staff did not have the training to understand this condition.

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.

People’s preferences in relation to emergency care and treatment, including resuscitation were documented. End of life care plans were in place and showed people’s choices and preferences had been discussed.