Foxwood Lodge Residential Care Home

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 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 79 (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.

Detailed pre-admission assessments were completed before people moved into the service. Managers gathered information from people, relatives, social workers, hospital staff and other healthcare professionals to ensure the service could meet people’s needs and support positive outcomes. Staff considered whether people’s primary needs could be safely and appropriately met within the service before admissions were agreed.

People’s care records contained information about their health conditions, life histories, communication needs, risks and personal preferences. For example, one person’s assessment documented their experiences of hospital care, mental health needs, communication preferences, risk of falls, swallowing difficulties and personal interests. This helped staff understand how to support them effectively.

People and those important to them were involved in assessing and reviewing care. The provider introduced ‘My Key, My Life’ reviews and involved relatives, advocates and healthcare professionals in conversations about people’s progress and future goals. One professional told us, “They took the time to understand [person’s] individual needs, including [their] likes and dislikes, the approaches that had worked well previously, and the specific triggers that could impact on [person’s] wellbeing.”

The provider made sure people received care and treatment in line with current standards and good practice. Staff used recognised approaches to support people’s mental health, emotional wellbeing and independence.

People received support tailored to their health needs. Staff followed guidance from healthcare professionals and specialist services, including speech and language therapists (SALT), GPs, mental health practitioners and hospital teams.

The provider used structured approaches to improve outcomes. For example, one person was supported through emotional regulation sessions and independence training. This contributed to a significant reduction in incidents requiring physical intervention.

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.

Staff communicated regularly with relatives, advocates, social workers, commissioners and healthcare professionals to ensure people received joined-up support. Feedback from professionals was consistently positive about partnership working. One professional told us, “The staff team were highly receptive to professional advice and worked collaboratively with all agencies involved.”

Staff told us they worked well as a team and felt supported by managers. The service used daily handovers, huddles, key worker meetings and regular supervision to ensure information about people’s needs was shared appropriately.

The provider supported people to maintain and improve their physical and mental health. Staff monitored people’s health needs and sought advice from healthcare professionals when concerns arose. People had access to GPs, mental health services, hospital appointments and other specialists when needed. Healthcare professionals told us staff acted promptly when health concerns were identified and ensured people received appropriate medical attention.

People were well supported with their nutrition and hydration needs. We found people received meals that reflected their individual requirements and preferences.

The service promoted healthier lifestyles through meaningful activities and opportunities within the community. Facilities included a gym, sensory room, garden and allotment. People were encouraged to access education, volunteering opportunities, sporting activities and community events.

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

Regular reviews of care, goals and risk management helped staff understand what was working well and where additional support was needed. Roadmaps, journey journals, key worker meetings and care plan reviews were used to track people’s progress towards their goals.

People were achieving positive outcomes. For example, people had reduced levels of supervision, increased access to the community, improved emotional regulation, completed education goals and progressed towards supported living.

Professionals also described significant improvements in people’s outcomes. One healthcare professional told us, “Since moving to Foxwood, there have been no Police call-outs and no hospital admissions, and [person] has successfully reduced to 1:1 staffing support.”

The service had systems to review incidents, feedback, audits and people’s progress. Although we identified some areas where recording and analysis processes could be strengthened, managers demonstrated an understanding of people’s outcomes and took action to improve care when issues were identified.

The provider understood and applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found staff involved people in decisions wherever possible and promoted choice and control.

Mental capacity assessments were completed where people lacked capacity to make specific decisions. Decision-specific assessments covered areas such as medicines, finances, residence and community access.

People had access to advocacy when needed.

People told us staff sought their consent and respected their choices about care and support. We saw examples of staff supporting people to make informed choices while promoting independence.