Woodview Care Centre

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.

This is the first assessment since the provider of this service changed. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Language used in care plans and other documentation to describe people and the emotions they expressed was not always dignified or respectful and could be patronising. For example, in a care plan it stated a person’s relative would give them ‘pocket money.’

People’s dignity had not always been considered when staff supported with continence. A person’s relative told us they had often gone into their family member’s bedroom, and it would smell as staff had left faeces and urine in the commode. Another relative had the same concern, they told us, “Overall [my family member] is happy there, but I find it smells of urine. The commode in their room, they had left the pan on the floor underneath the chair. I had to speak to [staff] 3 or 4 times about it. The night staff blamed the day staff and vice versus.”

We received mixed feedback in relation to how people felt they were treated.

Most people told us staff were rushed which impacted on their support. A person told us, “They rush a bit when helping me get me up, as they’re so busy. They say they’re always short at weekends.” Another person told us, “They use the hoist to get me onto the commode or into bed and I sometimes have to say to them to mind my legs, as they’re too busy chatting. The swivel arm hit me on the head last year and I had a big bruise above my eye.”

People told us they often lost their clothes when they had been washed which was not dignified and could cause upset. A person told us, “My main problem is not getting my clothes back from mix ups in the laundry - so my favourites aren’t there.”

Some people raised concerns about being supported roughly and feeling fearful which we reported on more in Safe. Other people told us most staff were kind. A person told us, “Oh yes they’re kind - we do have a laugh.”

Relatives mostly told us staff were friendly and engaging when they spoke with them.

We witnessed positive interactions at lunch time where people engaged with staff in a familiar and friendly way.

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. The provider did not take account of people’s strengths, abilities and aspirations.

Care plans did not always include people’s individual needs and preferences including any cultural or religious needs. People’s level of involvement and contribution to the development of their own care and support plans was not sufficient to ensure their preferences were fully recognised.

Daily care records were a tick box exercise and were not personalised to evidence how people’s individual needs and preferences were met even though the provider’s electronic system allowed more information to be included.

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.

Care plans we reviewed did not include details of people’s day-to-day preferences. Information about people’s hobbies, interests and important relationships was not included which meant the care team had little to understand the person, potentially leading to unsafe and ineffective care.

Not everyone was in control of their daily routines. A person told us, “They have their times for putting people to bed so depends on when they’re free to help us.” Other people told us they were enabled to maintain their independence. A person told us, “They let me choose what I can manage to do, like shave myself and wash bits I can reach. I’m not rushed into doing anything.”

People had little to occupy them. Staff did not have time to offer anything other than task-based care. A person told us, “We’re not doing anything at the moment. Staff don’t have the time to do it.” There was no activities co-ordinator to ensure meaningful activities were on offer to promote cognitive stimulation and reduce feelings of loneliness and isolation. A person told us, “We’re well looked after but in our rooms a lot on our own. That’s why I linger in the dining room after lunch.” Various people told us there were no activities and there was rare access to their community unless a person was independently able or had family that could take them. A relative told us, “[My family member] likes going to the pub but it has been a few weeks now since they said they had been.” A person told us, “Staff used to mix the units so we could socialise together, but they don’t do it anymore.” Another person said, “I used to enjoy going to join in games - I often won at bingo. I miss that now.” Although the provider told us they had recruited an activities coordinator and another one had returned to work, regular activities had been unavailable for several months without any action taken to change that.

Visitors were not restricted and people had access to their friends and family.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We heard call bells ringing fairly frequently and, on occasion, were not answered in a timely manner. People told us they often had to wait long periods of time to go to the toilet which could lead to several risks, including urinary tract infections. A person told us, “I ring for commode help. You have to wait quite a lot and it’s worse at night. They might pop in and say they’ll be back as soon as they can.” Another person told us, “I’ve waited up to 45 minutes before for the commode. Not great.” A relative told us, “I was there today, there were lots of people shouting wanting help, “Help I need the toilet.” I think they are understaffed. I appreciate it is a difficult job under difficult circumstances, but they should not speak to people like that either when rushed and under pressure.”

The provider did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Although staff did not raise any concerns about how the service supported their wellbeing, our findings in relation to people being treated with dignity, responding to people's immediate needs and always being offered choices that met people’s needs and preferences meant staff had not always been effectively enabled to deliver person-centred care.