Woodboro 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 inspection for this service under the current provider.

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.

People’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service. People and their relatives were involved in the initial assessment and their views and wishes were documented. The assessment process considered people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs and recorded their individual preferences for support. This information was used to develop their 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. Staff had access to a range of policies and support to promote good working practices.

People were supported appropriately with their eating and drinking needs. People were supported to make choices about what they would like to eat and drink. Staff took their time when providing meal support and people were encouraged to eat and drink at their own pace.

The provider had implemented a number of incentives to encourage good nutrition and hydration intake. These included creating personalised menus of foods people particularly enjoyed encouraging them to eat more and making homemade jelly drops to increase the amount of water people consumed. Where people required modified diets such as minced or pureed meals, staff used food moulds to ensure the meals looked appetising on the plate.
 

The provider worked in partnership with other healthcare professionals to promote consistency in people’s care when supporting them to access different health and community services. Staff worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

Comments from health professionals included, “The staff are always so professional”, “The manager and the staff have always been extremely helpful, knowledgeable regarding their residents and have always been very welcoming”, “Information has been provided promptly without the need for chasing” and [Registered manager] and their team are always friendly, professional, and quick to respond to any questions I have.”
 

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. People’s care plans contained information about the health professionals involved in their care and people’s care notes evidenced regular input from a range of different health and social care professionals.

People’s relatives told us health professionals visited regularly and staff were prompt in identifying any changes in their health which may require medical attention. Comments included, “The doctor and nurses go in regularly. [Person] has had chest infections that staff picked up” and “The GP team does a weekly visit to the home to check on any resident’s problems. It’s a stable system that is responsive to needs.”
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and support to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent and met clinical expectations. The provider was prompt to identify changes in people’s needs and make referrals to the relevant healthcare professionals where appropriate.

We received some mixed feedback from people’s relatives about how involved they were in reviewing people’s care, with relatives stating they were not always routinely invited to reviews or asked for their feedback. At the time of the inspection, the provider told us they were in the process of changing how their care plan reviews were completed to promote better communication and involvement from people’s relatives.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent. Where people may not have the capacity to make a specific decision, the provider had followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to assess people’s capacity. However, not all of the capacity assessments we reviewed were consistently detailed. Whilst some provided a clear record of how the decision had been made and what alternative options had been considered; others did not.

The provider told us they were aware some capacity documentation required more detail and were in the process of reviewing and updating all capacity assessments at the time of the inspection. During the inspection, we observed staff asking people for their consent prior to providing care and respecting their rights and choices.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider had made appropriate DoLS applications where necessary.