Woodlands 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. The last rating for this key question was good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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 carried out assessments of people’s needs. However, assessments and care plans did not always give enough personalised information. Those developing care plans had sometimes relied on generic statements from the provider’s computerised electronic care planning system rather than recording people’s individual needs and how these should be met. This meant there was a risk staff who were unfamiliar with people would not know their needs or provide personalised care.

Most relatives we spoke with felt they had been consulted. Although some people using the service told us they did not feel they had been involved. The registered manager explained that they took account of people’s mental capacity when making decisions about their care and always involved their relatives.

Whilst we identified records were not always person-centred or detailed enough, we found that staff working at the service knew people and were able to describe their needs and how they cared for them.

Staff undertook a range of training which helped them understand about delivering evidence-based care. Staff told us they had completed training regarding dementia.

The provider ensured people were offered a varied and nutritional diet which reflected good practice guidance for meeting people’s nutritional needs. People told us they liked the food and this was well prepared. They told us they were offered choices. Some of their comments included, “Whoever cooks the food, is doing it right”, “[Person] just loves the food and has choices”, “The food is pretty good” and “If there are things I do not like, it is not a problem, I can have something else.”

The staff had effective systems for communicating with each other and external professionals. The staff discussed people’s needs during a handover each day. They told us they had discussed changes in people’s needs. Staff felt communication was good. They told us they had regular meetings and direction from the management team.

The provider worked closely with healthcare professionals who visited the service to help meet people’s needs. There were effective systems for making referrals and asking for additional help.

People were supported with their healthcare needs. Information in care plans was not always detailed enough about individual healthcare needs. However, staff worked closely with external health professionals to help make sure people stayed healthy and changes in their needs were identified and acted on. One relative commented, “Staff supported [person] when they had a change in their eating and drinking. They sought guidance to find out how best to support [them] and explained this to us.”

Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing. They contacted external professionals and sought guidance when people’s needs changed or if they had concerns about a person’s wellbeing. Staff kept records to show about the care they had provided. The registered manager monitored these records to make sure people’s care needs were being met.

The provider did not always ensure people had consented or that decisions were made in their best interests. They had made decisions about people’s care and accommodation which were not appropriate or safe. The provider had sought agreement from relatives for some practices, although they had not always considered alternatives or less restrictive practices to meet people’s needs.

Staff offered people choices about day-to-day activities, including what they ate and the activities they participated in. One person told us, “The staff are alright, and they ask my permission.” A relative commented, “The staff talk to [person] in a nice way, offer choices and do not assume.”