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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 64 (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.
Person-centred care was not consistently reflected in care planning, and records did not always provide clear, accurate or individualised guidance for staff. For example, 1 person’s care plan detailed 3 different methods of mobility with no clear direction on which approach should be followed, and there was no evidence of a recent mobility assessment to inform this. In another record, a behaviour care plan lacked personalised strategies to support the person when distressed. While staff were able to describe appropriate approaches, these were not documented, meaning care relied on staff knowledge rather than clear written guidance. However, there were examples of positive engagement and involvement in care in practice.
 

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.

People received care from a consistent staff team who knew them well. People and relatives told us care needs were being met, and professionals described good communication and collaboration with the service.
 

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
Systems were in place to meet accessible information standards. Care records captured people’s communication needs, and we observed staff using communication aids appropriately.
 

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.

The provider gathered feedback through surveys and meetings with people, relatives and staff, and analysis of survey responses had been completed to identify trends. However, records of meetings did not always clearly demonstrate how staff were involved or how feedback led to improvements.

Feedback from people also indicated they did not always feel involved in wider decision making about the running of the home, with 1 person telling us, “The staff do ask us our thoughts but I wouldn’t say it was on the running of the home.”

Staff gave mixed views about their involvement, with some saying they would speak up if needed but also expressing that opportunities to influence change and recognition for their views could be improved. This meant people and staff were not always fully involved in shaping the service or assured their feedback consistently led to change.
 

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were able to access support when required, and systems were in place to help ensure help could be requested when needed. Call bells were available in bedrooms, and where these were not appropriate, alternative systems such as sensors were used to promote safety and responsiveness.

People and relatives generally told us staff were available and accessible, but feedback was mixed. One person said, “I never have to wait long if I need anything, staff are always about.” Some people told us there could be short delays at busy times, particularly during the night. For example, 1 person said, “Sometimes at night they [staff] may be busy with someone else and I have to wait a little while to be helped to the toilet,” while another commented, “I’m lucky because I can get up to the loo if I need it during the night so I can’t really say.”

Overall, feedback indicated people were able to access care and support when needed, with only occasional delays during busier periods.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened 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.

Care plans did not always reflect people’s rights or support equitable experiences. Inconsistencies in recording mental capacity meant it was not always clear how people were supported to make decisions. We also identified an example where a restriction had been placed on a person without clear rationale or evidence of appropriate decision-making processes. The person had capacity to make their own decisions and had expressed a wish for the restriction not to be in place, but records did not demonstrate how this had been appropriately reviewed or resolved. This created a risk of inequitable experiences and reduced outcomes. The provider had begun to take action following feedback to review and address this issue. Since the assessment, records showed steps had been taken to review the restriction and respond to the person’s expressed wishes. However, further work was ongoing to ensure decision-making processes were fully evidenced and consistently embedded.
However, care plans did reflect some consideration of protected characteristics, such as disabilities and religious beliefs, and we observed staff treating people fairly and equally in day-to-day practice.
 

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 had care plans in place to support future planning, and information relating to people’s wishes was recorded. At the time of the inspection, no one was receiving end of life care. However, people and relatives told us they felt confident discussing their preferences and wishes for the future with staff when needed. One person said, “I have chatted with staff about how I see my future and they know what I would like,” which demonstrated staff were open to having sensitive conversations. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions were recorded where appropriate, and staff had received relevant training, with further training planned to support good practice in this area.