West Wood 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.
At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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. We found people’s care plans had been reviewed regularly and were reflective of their care and support needs. Care plans were reviewed with the person or their relatives. The manager was new in service and was contacting people and their relatives to arrange times to go through their care plans with them.

A person told us, “We went through the whole thing this week. It was quite lengthy and took about 40 minutes and went through it all. It was reflective.” A relative told us, “I saw the new manager 2 to 3 weeks ago for an hour and we talked it through with [them].”

The provider did not always deliver evidence-based care and practice. The first floor was not a suitable environment for people living with dementia. The provider was not following evidence-based practice on the importance of the environment for people living with dementia. Signage was not bold and lacked in contrast. It was not clear for people to read. The environment looked the same as downstairs and there were no clear objects to help people navigate around the building. People with dementia identify objects to help navigate their way around. Communal areas had strong patterns in furniture, and this could cause sensory overload for people. Health care professionals also raised concerns around the staff’s approach to people living with dementia at times and could benefit from increased dementia training. The provider acknowledged this and had already begun rolling out their dementia framework in their other services and they were starting to implement it at this service. However; due to the size of the project and the changes within the team it was delayed.

The provider had already begun implementing training for staff. A staff member told us, “I attended Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) training. It helps me understand triggers and how to manage situations calmly. I follow care plans and use de-escalation techniques to support people safely.”

We found the service followed other evidence-based practice and had policies in place to reflect national guidance. The staff used clinical tools to assess people frequently

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. We received mixed feedback from some healthcare professionals regarding the agreed ways work working with the service. A comment we received was, “We identified on occasion that information which has been provided to the care provider in terms of treatment, care and management plans is sometimes but not always followed as advised, by the care provider.” We gave this feedback to the provider, and they confirmed there were issues in the past, but they were trying to work with healthcare professionals to resolve the issues and had arranged meetings with them directly to improve ways of working.

Another Health care professional told us, “The new manager of West Wood, has been extremely responsive to requests from the local authority.”Staff felt there was a good working relationship with healthcare professionals generally and good working relationship between their teams. They held daily 10 at 10 meetings, 7 days a week to ensure there was a continuity of communication between the staff on a daily basis and care staff had handovers at the beginning and end of their shift. This handover process had improved since the last inspection.

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 had “promote healthy lifestyle” care plans in place and this included the importance of their emotional well-being and knowing the impact this could have on a person’s health.

There was a variety of nutritious choices at mealtimes, and a new menu was implemented the day of our onsite visit that people had created themselves. There was a variety of fresh snacks on display mainly consisting of fresh fruit. This was risk assessed and did not pose a risk to people in the service. A person said, “There is always fruit in fruit bowls and bags of crisps in the environment.”

People attended weekly exercises classes in the service and used the local leisure centre next door to go swimming or use the gym. A person told us, “We have an exercise class on a weekly basis, and [individual holding the exercise class] is excellent.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people's care and treatment to continuously improve it. They could not ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. We found a care records could not evidence that a person was repositioned frequently to prevent their skin from breaking down further. An individual who needed their fluid monitoring due to the risks of developing a urinary tract infection was not routinely monitored. The provider had explanations for these incidents although the care plans did not reflect their findings.

However, the provider had weekly clinical meetings that discussed previous actions set to ensure they were achieved and they created actions to ensure people had improved outcomes and were routinely monitored. People’s daily records evidenced that they were routinely monitored. We identified staff were recording entries in different sections of people’s care notes. The provider had already identified this and were working with staff to improve it. There were policies in place for staff to follow to ensure they monitored people’s conditions.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Where people had an impairment of the brain or mind, appropriate mental capacity assessments were conducted. These assessments were clear on how they identified if people did or did not have the capacity to make specific decisions. Where people lacked capacity best interest decisions were conducted and involved people’s relatives.
We observed staff obtaining consent before they supported people in the service and people we spoke with confirmed this. One person told us, “[Staff] are pretty good, they ask for consent.”