Woolston House

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 people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

A pre-admission assessment was undertaken before people moved to the service. The management had focused on this process, supporting staff to undertake in-depth assessments, and consider their compatibility with people already living at the service. They aimed to ensure any required equipment was in place before the person moved in.

Following people’s admission to the service, staff used various assessment tools and worked with healthcare professionals to ensure people received appropriate treatment. Care plans were developed in consultation with people and/or their relatives. More recently a project manager had been supporting the team to make improvements to the information contained within people’s care plans.

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. Information about people’s health conditions and needs were included in their care plans.

Overall, people were very positive about the support they received. Comments included, “The care is very good. This is the 4th care home that (name) has been in, and it is by far and away the best one” and “They recognise (relative’s) condition and he has senior carers and one to one care. He is looked after well."

The provider specialised in supporting people with complex health needs. A tool was used to assess if a person may need physical restrictive interventions. Where this was considered, staff followed procedures to ensure this was the least restrictive approach, with suitable risk assessments and care plans in place. Well-being care plans were developed and included positive behaviour support plans where necessary.

Feedback about food options was mixed, but recent improvements had been seen. People said, “The food is okay, not too bad, I think they are updating the menu soon” and “The food isn’t very good. It’s not the cook; it’s more the quality of the ingredients they get in. They do a choice and they will always find you something if you aren’t keen on the choices.” A food forum was being introduced to enable people to give more input and feedback.

Where a person’s care plan said they needed a modified diet, staff had not always recorded the correct consistency had been provided. The registered manager confirmed this was a recording error, as modified meals were prepared and provided directly from the kitchen. Records were inconsistent in relation to the consistency of fluid another person required. The management team took some immediate action and additional discussions with staff were implemented.

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.

The provider employed a team of clinical professionals whom staff could utilise as required. This included mental health and behaviour support teams, a psychiatrist, physiotherapist, as well as various specialist nurses.

Nursing staff undertook regular clinical ‘walkaround’ to oversee people’s clinical needs. Heads of department meetings and daily huddles were held to ensure staff were kept up to date with any changes or required actions. However, the provider needed to ensure processes were robust and staff were always updated with relevant information. We saw one person was waiting for a lap belt to be provided for their shower chair. Whilst this was for preference rather than safety, the staff member did not know this when offering the person a shower and this was not recorded in their care plan. The registered manager confirmed this had now been fitted and the care plan was updated.

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.

Care plans contained information about people’s health conditions and guided staff how to support their health needs. People were supported to be healthier, for example, relatives told us, “At the moment, (name) is trying to eat healthily and they are supporting her with that” and “(Relative) is on pureed food now. It looks quite nice most of the time and he gets healthy options.”

The provider used an assessment tool, which used scores to help identify if a person had deteriorated and appropriate responses were identified.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans contained information about how they could achieve good outcomes. Staff undertook monthly reviews of people’s care plans, including how they were achieving their goals. People had annual reviews and the provider was in the process of ensuring these had been completed with everyone.

The provider employed a team of clinical professionals to help support people and the staff team. For example, people had benefited from regular physiotherapy and/or support from specialist nurses, to achieve their goals. The provider gave several examples of positive outcomes for people, including mobility improvements and improvements in confidence and social life.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff sought consent before providing care and supported people to understand their rights. For example, staff described how they had sought consent and devised a plan in line with a person’s wishes, about entering and cleaning their bedroom.

Care plans included information about people’s capacity to make decisions and how to involve them in their care arrangements. Staff undertook mental capacity assessments and where required, made best interest decisions for people. Where people had consented, in relation to recent bedroom and unit moves, this was recorded. However, where people lacked capacity to make this decision, whilst they had been consulted with, some records had been found to be inconsistent or had not been recorded in a timely way. The management team had already taken action to address this.