Woodview Care Centre

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.

This is the first assessment since the provider of this service changed. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met. The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 39 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans did not always reflect people’s preferences on how they want to be supported, including personal care, what they liked to eat or drink, who they interacted with in the home or activities they may have wanted to be involved with. A person told us, “I get given a shower once in a while. I’d prefer one every day ideally, like I did at home, but have to have a strip wash otherwise.”

Care plans were not created or reviewed collaboratively with people or their relatives, which meant there was a risk care plans did not fully reflect people’s needs and preferences. A person told us, “I’ve no idea what [my care plan] is all about as no one asks me.” Another person told us, “I did some paperwork when I came from hospital but that’s it. I’ve not seen anything since.” People told us they did not have a choice of what gender staff member would support them with their personal care and care plans did not record any decisions around the preferred gender of staff member they wanted to support them. A person told us, “They didn’t ask me who I preferred. A man came to get me ready for bed and I asked for a lady, but it caused a problem and made me feel a nuisance.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Although some training had been provided for staff to understand people’s health needs like training in understanding dementia, there were other complex health conditions that staff were not trained in and did not have a full understanding of. The provider was registered to support people with mental health conditions, however, there was no training for staff to understand how to support people experiencing mental health challenges or crisis intervention.

Where people were receiving care from an external health team, care plans did not indicate this. For example, when a person was receiving input from the physiotherapy team following a serious injury. Professional visiting records in people’s daily records were either not completed or lacked any information and left people exposed to the risk of not having clear guidance on their care needs.

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The service had not followed the 5 steps to meet the Accessible Information Standard, (AIS). Needs were not clearly and consistently recorded in people’s individual records to ensure equal access to information and support for people, regardless of their disability or sensory loss.

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Most people did not have a regular forum to share ideas, give feedback or discuss ways the service could be improved. Without a platform for people to actively participate, the management team were unaware of specific needs or areas for improvement, which meant there was a decline in the quality of care at Woodview Care Centre. Although there was a ‘residents committee’ there was no evidence of how that worked to represent everyone’s concerns and collectively address these to improve the service.

Complaints were not always recorded appropriately to ensure they were responded to effectively and monitored for themes and learning. A relative told us, “‘Yes [I made a complaint] but [nothing] gets done. We asked for some feedback forms from a year ago but still don’t have any.” A person told us, “I’ve complained to the senior person about the long wait after I’m on the commode. My door gets shut so I get forgotten. But it still happens when they’re busy.”

The service had not produced information for people in different formats. For example, there was no access to easy read documents, such as how to raise a complaint so everyone knew the process to complain if they were unhappy with the quality of the service they were receiving.

People and relatives did not always feel their wishes were considered. A relative told us, “Sometimes staff will ask what [my family member] wants to do, others will tell them. [My family member is] tied to their routine though with bedtimes as they can’t do much for themself.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and

treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were not referred to the falls team after having frequent falls. This meant people were not accessing a service that could have potentially improved their safety, reduced the falls risk, and enhanced their quality of life. The acting manager told us they did not think there was a falls team but had made no attempt to find out.

However, people told us they had access to healthcare when they required it. A person told us, “The surgery nurse comes every Wednesday, and we can go on her list. I see the optician about once a year, and the chiropodist visits me every six weeks.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen 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. There were no effective systems in place for people to feed back about their care and support to ensure they were in control.

Although staff had a good understanding of most people who used the service that were most likely to experience inequality, they did not always proactively seek out ways to address these barriers to improve people’s experience to achieve equity.

People were not always 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.

We found people’s advanced decisions and what mattered to them were not clearly recorded in their plans of care. Staff had not supported people and their relatives to create detailed care plans, to ensure they addressed physical, emotional, social, and spiritual needs and preferences in relation to their end-of-life care.

Where people did not wish to discuss the end of their life, there were no clear plans in place to revisit the subject in the future, in a different way.