Woodville 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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.

The provider worked with people to ensure people made care and treatment choices they were happy with that met their needs. We saw how people had been provided with specialist equipment to help support their independence and health. One person told us how they had been involved in decisions around obtaining a new wheelchair which had been specifically made for them to ensure their comfort and wellbeing. We saw a community nurse visited the service to support 1 person with their specialist care.

Care plans contained information about people’s needs to support staff in providing care in accordance with people’s choices and preferences. One staff member told us, “I always look at the plans, they tell me what the resident wants me to do and when. When a new resident comes in, we always read the plans and then talk to them to make sure it’s what they want.”

Staff told us they would spend time talking to people to learn about what was important to them. One staff member told us, “If you learn something then you tell the manager and they change the plan. I talked to [Name]. They like the newspaper so now they get it every day.” Another said, “When we can, we sit with the resident to learn. Like [Name] enjoys history about World War 1 and 2. We use that to talk and to plan activities.”

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.

There were people with diverse needs across the home. Some had limited mobility and others had dementia which meant they had varying care and support needs. Staff recognised that sometimes people with dementia could become confused or forgetful and they prompted people where appropriate to help them get the support they needed. Staff also adapted the way group activities were provided to ensure everyone could participate. Some people were supported on outside visits to the local community, or they accessed community services in the home. For example, a relative told us a hairdresser visited the home to do their family members hair.

Mealtimes at the home were flexible to accommodate people who wished to eat later than the suggested times. We saw 1 person had chosen to stay in bed later and staff were instructed in the care records to ensure their mealtimes were adjusted through the day due to having a late breakfast.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information in the home was not all up-to-date due to the change in provider. For example, people had been provided with a ‘service user guide’ but this contained information related to the previous provider. We were told this would be updated. The registered manager said that information could be provided to people in large print if required.

People told us communication in the home was good and relatives confirmed this with the exception of not being advised fully about the new provider. One relative told us, “We were not made aware at any point that it was changing hands, there was no communication whatsoever.” Another told us, “They notify me of things I need to know, I’d say they’re good at communication, they get in touch if they need to.”

Staff told us they knew how best to communicate with people, and they adjusted their communication methods with people accordingly. For example, 1 staff member told us about a person whose first language was not English. They said, “Some colleagues speak Punjabi, but we communicate using signs and pointing. The resident can let us know what they want.”

The provider gave people opportunities 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.

People had opportunities to attend resident meetings if they wished where they could share their views about the home and any suggestions for improvement. However, the registered manager told us these took place every 6 months and people spoken with told us they had not attended these meetings. This meant there were limited opportunities for people to provide regular feedback.

We saw that within the service user guide in people’s rooms there was a complaint policy, but this was out of date and contained details of the previous provider and registered manager. This meant there was not a current complaints procedure accessible to people. One person told us, “No, I can’t recall seeing a complaints policy, I have never seen information on a complaints policy, I don’t have any problems with anything.” Despite this, people told us they would approach family members or staff if they had any concerns.

Relatives told us they had been involved in their relative’s care but with the change of management they were not sure if this would be ongoing. One told us, “It seems to be mixed, the people doing it seem to change every year, last time was a face to face with [name] in their room and they sent me a printed report later. It’s difficult because they’ve now changed hands so I’m gauging it on the previous people really.” Despite this, relatives told us they would approach the new provider if they had any issues, that needed to be addressed. One relative told us they had raised several issues and each of these had been actioned by the new provider.

The provider told us, “We do talk to the residents but no, I haven’t written it down. It’s informal. We need to look at sending out questionnaires. We thought about doing it at the festival in July.”

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

People’s needs were reviewed to ensure staff had up-to-date information on the care and support people required. People’s protected characteristics were understood by staff who supported them to access care from other health and social care professionals. One staff member told us, “The district nurses work with us. We help them and makes sure we are available when they visit. It helps build trust and they know when we call them it’s for a resident who needs them and they come.”

Staff told us they were able to accompany people to attend emergency hospital admissions to ensure they accessed the treatment required.

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.

Staff training information showed all staff had completed equality and diversity training to help them ensure people experienced care that was tailored to their needs. Staff and leaders were aware of risks associated with people experiencing inequality and worked to ensure people experienced outcomes tailored to their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, 1 person told us how they were able to attend an outside visit because staff ensured they could use their wheelchair. We saw people’s food was prepared taking into consideration dietary needs such as pureed and soft diets.

People were not always 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.

Training records showed all staff had completed training on end of life care. However, care records were not clear how people would wish to be supported should their health deteriorate and they were at the end of their life. For example, 1 care plan stated, “Because [person] may not be able to make decisions, for them to be made in their best interests.” There was no indication if the person had any family, and if so, if they would like them to be involved in any decisions such as treatment options including if the person would wish to be admitted to hospital, or remain in the home. We discussed the development of care plans in relation to this with the registered manager. They agreed to speak with people and develop care plans to reflect peoples wishes and preferences when at the end of their life.

Staff told us, “If a resident is dying it is very sad. They are our family. We sit with them and care for them, but we respect they need time with family, and we help them as well.”