Woodleigh Rest Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.
 

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people throughout the assessment. Staff were kind, attentive and respectful in their approach, taking time to engage with people in a warm and meaningful way. When supporting people with personal care, staff were discreet and maintained people’s dignity. Staff told us the people are the best part of their jobs, saying, “Every day I love to go back to see and care for them.”

People spoke positively about the care they received, with 1 person telling us, “The staff are so very kind. They treat me as a human being who has experience of life, not as a person who needs things doing for them,” which reflected a culture of respect.
 

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people as individuals and promoted their preferences in daily care. They knew people well and were able to describe their likes, dislikes and personal histories. For example, staff were aware of people’s preferred drinks and engaged them in conversations about their interests, including past experiences and hobbies. We observed people dressed in line with their preferences, and care plans included information about personal appearance. Interactions reflected this knowledge, with 1 staff member saying, “Come on, what about a tea with 2 sugars, I know you like it,” showing a personalised and familiar approach to care.
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always supported to exercise choice and control over all aspects of their daily routines, and care was often organised around the service’s schedule rather than individual preferences. People consistently told us they were supported to go to bed at set times, often in the early evening. One person said, “It’s easier for staff this way, I don’t mind,” and another told us, “I get a choice over my meals and if I want to join in things but not about what time to get up or go to bed. I just go along with the staff when they come to get me up and go to bed. I know they are busy and it’s easier for them.” This indicated people did not always feel fully empowered to make independent decisions about their care. Similarly, personal care routines were not always flexible, with 1 person stating, “I think there must be a rota for who gets a shower on which day as it’s always the same day for me,” suggesting care was delivered in line with a fixed schedule.
However, people were supported to make some day-to-day choices, such as meals and participation in activities, and we observed positive practice where staff encouraged independence. For example, staff offered support and then stepped back to allow a person to continue a task independently, demonstrating staff promoted independence in some areas of people’s lives.
 

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded appropriately to people’s immediate needs, and we saw timely and compassionate support being provided. For example, when 1 person became upset, staff responded in an understanding and calm manner, using reassurance, gentle distraction and appropriate physical reassurance, which helped to reduce their anxiety. Staff were also attentive to people requiring practical support; 1 person asked to use the toilet twice during the site visit, and staff responded promptly on both occasions.

People told us they were supported to access healthcare services when needed. One person said, “A few days ago I felt really unwell. The staff contacted a doctor on the computer and at 10pm a doctor arrived to check me over,” demonstrating staff acted quickly to ensure people received the care and treatment they required.
 

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff and did not always support and enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff wellbeing had improved since the previous assessment; however, this was not consistent across the workforce. Staff told us morale was better and they felt more supported by the management team, with improved communication and clearer guidance in their roles. However, some staff told us they would like more recognition for their work and felt appreciation from the provider was limited.

While some initiatives such as verbal thanks and small rewards were in place, these were not consistently experienced by all staff. Overall, although there had been improvements, further work was needed to ensure all staff felt equally valued and supported in their roles.