Woodview Care Centre

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.

This is the first assessment since the provider of this service changed. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to consent to care.

This service scored 46 (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 plans were not created or reviewed collaboratively with people or their relatives, when appropriate, which meant there was a risk care plans did not fully reflect people’s needs and preferences.

When changes had been made to people’s support needs, care plans were not updated to ensure they were up to date and relevant. This meant that staff and other healthcare professionals could not provide effective care and support.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care plans did not always reflect people’s current support needs, so it was not possible to establish whether people were always receiving the support they required. For example, a care plan did not give enough detail on how staff were to assist them to eat even though their care plan stated they were at risk of leaving their food if not supported, which put them at risk of malnutrition. Despite this, kitchen staff were aware of specific dietary needs and how to meet them. Food passports were in place to ensure people on modified diets received food in a way that was safe for them to eat.

Recognised tools were used to monitor people’s health; however, they were not always accurately completed to ensure they were effective. For example, a tool used to assess a person's risk of developing pressure sores (Waterlow) was incorrectly completed for a person. This meant there was a risk of delayed or insufficient preventative care, increasing the risk of pressure sore development and reduced quality of life.

We found the service had not worked well with the Local Authority safeguarding team due to concerns not always being identified or reported.

Communication between staff was mostly verbal with no structured way to share information to ensure an effective transition of responsibility. Handover records were not consistently kept and were incomplete which put people at risk of poor care.

However, staff worked well with external healthcare professionals to support people with their health needs. A professional told us, “Whenever I go to Woodview the staff are always really helpful.”

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. However, records were disjointed, and information was not appropriately documented to ensure support was consistent. For example, a person who required physiotherapy after a fall had exercises to improve mobility, but the care plan had not been updated to reflect those changes and there was no evidence the person was being supported in line with their needs. The acting manager was not aware they were receiving physiotherapy and when they asked staff, they found the exercise instructions to help build this person’s strength were left in their room where they could have been lost.

People did not access the dentist regularly to ensure good oral care. Although some oral assessments were carried out with people, these were not consistent and there was no evidence of any positive outcomes. For example, nobody had an individualised care plan to document oral health needs and goals, encompassing daily hygiene practices, professional care, and preventative measures.

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

Feedback from people and their relatives was mostly positive in relation to the support they received. However, people were not aware of their care plans, therefore were not involved in agreeing any outcomes. A person told us they wanted to be supported in other ways to improve their independence. Another person stated they wanted to shower daily like they used to at home, but there had been no opportunity for them to discuss this with staff to change their situations. We were not assured people were supported to achieve positive, person-centred outcomes that could improve their quality of life.

The service did not support people in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). There was a lack of documented assessments for individuals unable to make their own decisions regarding care, such as using bed rails. Mental capacity assessments or best interest decisions were not always carried out to ensure consent was given or the use of bed rails was a proportionate response to any identified risk and the least restrictive option.

Care plans were not always reflective of people’s capacity and capacity assessments were not consistently completed correctly. People with fluctuating capacity were not supported to understand decisions to be made and it was unclear when they had made decisions whether they could weigh up the risks. When a person had fluctuating capacity, their capacity was not reviewed regularly, especially for decisions that required ongoing management to keep them safe.

However, people told us staff were always polite and would ask them first before they provided any support.