Woodleigh Rest Home Limited

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 changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 63 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.
Care records were not always accurate or consistently maintained. We identified discrepancies and inconsistencies, including 1 person’s records containing contradictory information about their mobility needs, which had not been identified through the provider’s audit processes. This meant staff did not always have access to up-to-date or reliable information to guide care, which could impact the consistency and safety of support provided.
However, people’s needs were assessed prior to admission, and relatives told us they felt involved in care planning and reviews. One family member said, “I was involved at the beginning and we have had a review quite recently,” demonstrating a commitment to involving others in planning care.
 

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.
The provider had implemented the STEW programme (Supporting Those at risk of malnutrition by Eating Well), an approach designed to improve nutrition through the fortification of food and the provision of additional snacks and high-calorie options. This was working well, with food appropriately fortified and people receiving adequate nutrition, hydration and snacks. We saw evidence of weights being regularly monitored, with improvements noted for people who had previously experienced weight loss.
 

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.
Staff worked effectively together and communicated well. Feedback from external professionals described staff as responsive, communicative and supportive. This demonstrated effective partnership working.
Relatives spoke positively about communication with the service, with 1 telling us, “The whole family are pleased that we have such a good relationship with the home. We discuss things about [person]. The staff let us know if they are concerned about anything and keep us informed of any changes to [person]… the staff always let me know,” demonstrating staff maintained open communication and involved families in ongoing care.

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 were supported to maintain their health through good nutrition and access to healthcare services. There were opportunities to enhance this further as already identified by the provider through structured activities and greater community engagement, particularly once an activities coordinator was in post. However, provisions were in place internally to ensure people were engaged.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and
consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Clinical tools were in place however; these were not consistently embedded within care plans. For example, skin integrity assessments were not always reflected within care plans, meaning staff did not always have clear guidance to follow. Where district nurses were involved, staff recorded their advice and guidance clearly in daily notes. However, this guidance was not always incorporated into care plans or consistently followed in practice. This meant care delivery did not always align with professional recommendations, and the provider could not be fully assured outcomes were being effectively monitored and improved.

We did see positive outcomes where other systems were embedded. For example, people supported through the STEW programme had shown improvements in weight and nutritional status.

 

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.
Consent to care and treatment was not always clearly or consistently documented. While consent was referenced within care plans, records were not always signed, and some written consents held in paper files were outdated or did not reflect people’s current circumstances. We also found contradictory information regarding mental capacity. One care plan indicated a person may lack capacity while also documenting their ability to make day-to-day decisions, and the person had a DoLS application in place. This meant records did not consistently reflect people’s ability to consent to care and treatment.

Despite these recording issues, people told us staff sought their agreement in practice. One person said, “The staff always check that I am happy or at least ok with what they need to do.”