William Wood House

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Most people and their relatives confirmed they were actively involved in care decisions, especially when support needs shifted. One person said, “They [staff] call on me at times that suit me. If I ring the buzzer if I need some help, they are prompt to respond.” A relative commented, “We have a good rapport with the staff. They are good in the way they communicate and phone to keep me in the loop.” While a few relatives shared occasional inconsistencies, they were aware how to address these matters with the leadership team, and some were planning to.

Staff members demonstrated a strong commitment to delivering high-quality, person-centred care. A staff member shared, “Dignity is all about respecting boundaries and honouring [individual’s] choices even if it is not the right choice at the time. Independence is all about their choice allowing them to make it, encouraging independence promotes health and wellbeing.”

The leadership team aimed to consider people’s needs and preferences when planning call times and support to promote continuity, responsiveness, and person-centred care; however, a reliance on agency staff did not always enable this. Active recruitment for permanent positions was underway to address these staffing shortfalls.

Care plans were flexible and were adapted when people’s circumstances or goals changed. For example, the registered manager shared instances where people became more independent and could do more for themselves, which resulted in a decrease in the number or duration of their care visits.

Staff stated that if an individual required more assistance due to changing needs, they escalated this so a reassessment could be completed. This process allowed the leadership team to check if the frequency or duration of care visits required an increase, supporting the service to remain responsive by adjusting care in line with people’s evolving needs.

In response to inspection feedback, the registered manager launched a comprehensive review of all care documentation to eliminate inconsistencies. They also planned staff workshops focused on using respectful language in records, moving away from outdated terms such as “bedbound”, “suffers with”, and “bedridden”. This structured approach aimed to ensure records were more person-centred and respectful, promoting dignity while reflecting peoples' abilities and experiences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Feedback from professionals confirmed that people experienced positive access to external healthcare services, including district nurses, therapy teams, and GPs. Staff stated that they supported individuals with medical appointments and assisted during visits from external healthcare professionals when required. Additionally, the staff team communicated effectively with external health and social care professionals to support people’s ongoing needs. One visiting health professional shared, “I have worked within William Wood House for just over two years, the staff are always friendly and happy to help if needed and there is generally a great atmosphere, the [tenants] I talk to speak very highly of the staff and enjoy the many activities that the staff put on for them.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s care records clearly outlined their specific communication needs and highlighted necessary adjustments for staff to implement, such as adaptations for hearing loss or visual impairments. People and their relatives confirmed that communication with staff and management was effective, providing them with the necessary information to act as active partners in their care. Information was routinely shared with other professionals when required to support continuity of care, allowing any changes in health and well-being to be addressed in a timely manner.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Systems for people and relatives to share feedback, propose ideas, or raise complaints regarding their care, treatment, and support were in place. Most of the feedback received described these frameworks as effective. One person told us, “The team leader will call in to see me so that I can provide feedback about the carers.” A relative shared that the service was, “Excellent in requesting feedback and seeing if there are ways that care can be improved.”

Staff involved people in decisions about their care and kept them informed of any subsequent changes. People and their relatives confirmed they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident escalating issues when necessary. While highlighting some inconsistencies, one relative shared, “I have discussed these issues with [staff member], I can talk to them.

The registered manager listened to people’s views and included them in care decisions. Feedback was encouraged, addressed promptly, and utilised to improve overall experiences.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The staff and leadership team collaborated with health and social care partners to source new or replacement equipment, removing potential barriers to individual care. Care plans included specific deployment details to ensure staff utilised equipment safely. When care needs changed, the leadership team adjusted support arrangements in partnership with the local authority and healthcare professionals. Both people and their relatives confirmed that staff responded promptly to changing needs and coordinated effectively with external services to support positive outcomes.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The leadership team and staff recognized people’s different needs, circumstances, and protected characteristics. This approach helped them work toward equitable outcomes. They delivered tailored care to help people achieve positive results in safety, well-being, and independence. Staff identified individual needs through initial and ongoing assessments, and in supporting care plans. When a person's needs changed, their care was adapted. This flexible adjustment kept support individualised and promoted equal opportunities.

People were 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.

People had ReSPECTforms in place, which were maintained both in their home care folders and at the office to allow for rapid access by staff during emergencies. A ReSPECT form is a guide for medical staff during a sudden emergency. It is created together by a person, their family, and the professionals looking after them. The plan records clear choices about whether to focus on saving life or keeping the person comfortable, including whether to try cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). It is used when the person is too unwell to speak for themselves. The provider maintained a comprehensive end-of-life policy, and staff had completed relevant training to support this specialised area of care. While nobody using the service required end-of-life care at the time of the inspection, the registered manager explained that when supporting individuals at this stage, they collaborated closely with relevant healthcare professionals, including the local hospice team. In addition, advanced care plans were completed to help staff understand individuals' specific wishes and support preferences for their end-of-life care.