Woodstock Care Home Limited

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 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 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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs, risks and choices were assessed and planned for. People and their representatives told us they were involved in their needs assessments and with compiling their care plans. A representative told us, “We were involved in the care planning and inputting information etc. I get told when the GP etc. are coming and I am part of reviews.”

People’s care plans contained clear and detailed information, with appropriate use of language, regarding their care needs and the levels of support they required. Care plans also contained information about people’s individual choices and preferences.

Staff told us that everybody had a full review of their care and support on a regular basis. A member of staff told us, “Care plans and risk assessments are very well made and informative.They are reviewed monthly or if something changes.”

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 assessed and planned for people’s nutrition and hydration needs, including dietary and cultural preferences. Some people were at risk of choking and had been assessed by a speech and language therapist (SALT). Staff followed the SALT advice and guidance to make sure people ate and drank safely. Some people were deemed as being underweight and we saw that these people were supported to have fortified meals and drinks.

Staff completed electronic records of people’s daily wellbeing, including what they had consumed during the day. The electronic system was effective and provided detailed records. However, we noted a few occasions where it was evident that staff had selected the incorrect icon regarding the actual consistency of people’s food. We raised this with the manager, who confirmed they would speak with staff to ensure they all understood the importance of accurate record keeping.

People and their relatives also told us that staff fully supported people with their individual needs. For example, a person’s representative told us, “[Name] has to have soft foods. [They] can feed [themselves], but staff help to cut it up.” Another representative told us their loved one had enough to eat and drink. This person said, “[Staff] they ask [Name] if they want more and they hold the glass for them.”

Staff told us they had good knowledge of people’s individual dietary needs. Staff told us, “Yes, this is very well communicated.” “I have a very good understanding of peoples dietary needs and hydration needs, following IDDSI (food and fluid consistency) levels where needed.”

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.

There was a collaborative approach in supporting people’s care needs. Staff communicated effectively with other professionals. Referrals to external health and social care professionals were made promptly when needed and care records, as well as observations, confirmed that guidance and recommendations were followed.

All staff we spoke with were open and willing to engage. Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of people living in the home and respectful when discussing people’s care needs.

Staff told us there was good teamwork and the ethos was a ‘whole home approach’. A member of staff told us, “There is enough staff for the current needs of the residents. Obviously, you get some days that are busier than others, but the manager, admin and domestic staff are always happy to help out when needed.” Another member of staff said, “Staff work together as a team to provide safe, compassionate care, and help residents feel respected, comfortable and supported in their daily lives.”

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 told us they were able to see doctors and other professionals when needed. They were happy with the support they had. People’s representatives told us that staff in the home were very good at recognising and addressing changes in people’s needs, following professional and clinical guidance and taking appropriate action. For example, a representative told us, “I would say that [Name] has settled very well there. [Name] has said the staff are very caring and they are good. The food is good and [Name] looks well cared for. [Name]’s health is better now and [their] memory has improved so much.”

A staff member told us, “Mealtimes are sacred and they need to be pleasurable for the residents so they consume as much as they can to keep their nutrition and hydration good. At Woodstock we try and give people good nutritional choices and to make it as relaxing as possible.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff regularly monitored people’s wellbeing and support. When people were unwell, or there was a change in their conditions, management and staff increased monitoring to make sure they received medical support if needed.

Staff told us that monitoring people’s wellbeing was a continual process because there were frequent interactions with each individual. A member of staff told us, “Our home encourages [staff] to take their time with residents and try to make them as happy as possible during their stay here at Woodstock.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People, or their legal representatives, were asked to consent to their care and treatment. Managers assessed people’s mental capacity to make different decisions. When people lacked capacity in any particular area, management and staff liaised with their families and other professionals to help make decisions in their best interests.

People and their representatives told us people were given choices and consented to their care. A person’s representative told us they had observed staff leaving their loved one’s room, as a result of being asked to do so. People’s representatives also made comments such as, “I hear [staff] ask [Name] if it is okay to help [them].” “They give [Name] choices. [Name] chose to not have [their] hair done – [Name] said that [they] ‘did not want her hair cut.’ [Name] is asked what [they] want for lunch and [they] have a shower every other day.” And, “[Name] can choose what to do and what to wear and they enable [Name] to keep independent this way. They [Staff] ask for consent definitely.”

A person living in the home told us, “I like it here. They [staff] don’t make me do anything I don’t want to and they always check it’s okay with me first, before they do anything for me.”