Woodfield Care Home Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff at the service always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Everyone living at the service told us they felt well cared for and liked living at the service. People told us and we observed staff were very friendly, always kind and caring and treated them with dignity and respect.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. As staff did not complete detailed recordings of support provided, choices offered and made by people this led to assurances on making sure support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences difficult. All daily records completed and reviewed provided no information of any discussions around choices or preferences from people prior to or following the completion of support. A relative told us they were concerned about the presentation of a relative who appeared unkempt and suspected a lack of staff support provided relating to personal care. The person lacked capacity and the relative told us they raised the concern with the provider and found the provider were not providing support as recorded within their relatives care plan.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Due to people lacking capacity and not able to directly tell us about their experience, we used a structured observation tool to assess whether they received good care. This demonstrated interactions between people and staff were task-based. There was no evidence of meaningful engagement. Records for people living at the service highlighted task-based interactions with no social interactions or activities with people evident. The provider did employ an activities coordinator. Activities were not currently planned, advertised within the service or completed with people individually who chose not to spend time in communal areas. However, we were told of the ordering of display boards and the intention to plan, advertise future activities and the planning of activities would include programme to involve individuals as well as group activities.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Bedrooms were situated a considerable distance from communal areas where we observed staff based themselves when not providing care. Not everyone who chose to remain in their bedrooms were able to use the call bell system and regular welfare checks were not consistently recorded. A person we spoke to told us they felt isolated when they chose to remain in their room. A professional who visited the service raised similar concerns around isolation of people who received care and remained within their bedrooms.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. We observed staff to be very busy. Staff rotas and observations when at the service showed staffing levels were often below assessed levels to meet people’s needs. We received mixed feedback from staff; some staff told us they felt well supported whilst other staff told us they did not feel supported, and they did not receive regular supervisions. Staff had received mandatory training, and most of the staff told us they felt the training they received was sufficient to their role.