Woodfield 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 were assessed prior to them moving into the service and people and their relatives and advocates were involved in creating care plans and risk assessments. Where new needs were identified relatives told us the staff team acted quickly to address any concerns, sought advice from relevant professionals, and provided updates to them.

We found evidence of a person who’s care plan indicated their bathing preferences, but this had changed recently and although staff were aware, the care plans had not been updated. We raised this matter with the registered manager who actioned immediately.

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.

Care and treatment was mainly delivered in line with current best practice and supported by nationally recognised tools, for example malnutrition and skin integrity. We saw evidence of appropriate referrals to other professionals when required. People’s relatives told us staff knew their loved ones well and supported them in ways that reflected their preferences. Care plans reflected evidence-based approaches, including nutrition and hydration and mental capacity assessments. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals such as GP’s, occupational therapists and community nurses.

Staff 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.

People had Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place which were designed to guide healthcare professionals in providing care that aligned with a patient’s values and wishes during emergencies, such as sudden illness.

The provider had established communication systems, such as handovers, which ensured the staff team were kept updated about people’s support needs and any changes to their health or wellbeing.

The provider told us they had a good relationship with the local authority, the Integrated Care Board (ICB), community nurses, GP’s and hospital discharge teams, which ensured positive transitions between services.

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’s nutritional needs and preferences were assessed and understood by staff. Staff had knowledge of people’s likes and dislikes regarding food and we saw evidence of people requiring alternative diets.

Staff helped people access healthcare professionals, and relatives told us they were informed when concerns were identified. People’s emotional wellbeing was supported through caring interactions, and staff showed empathy, warmth and patience.

We saw evidence of regular activities for people to engage in if they wished, which supported their well-being.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure outcomes were positive and consistent, or they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Clear and consistent guidance was not always available to staff on how to monitor people’s health and wellbeing proactively. For example, some people used air mattresses which were required to be set specifically to a person’s weight. Although staff were tasked to check the settings daily, people’s care plans were not always accurately updated to provide their correct weight. This created a risk of potential skin integrity deterioration. These issues meant the provider could not be assured people were receiving safe, consistent, and effective care that met their needs.

We raised our concerns with the registered manager who acted immediately to update care records and share lessons learnt with staff.

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

Staff completed training in The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and understood the principles behind best interest decisions and capacity to consent. Staff knew it was important to gain people’s consent before providing care. One staff member explained whilst it was important to respect people’s right to refuse support, they sometimes had to work in people’s best interests to provide care. They told us, “I'd document [their] refusal but I would also go back later or try an alternative staff member as sometimes a new face helps”.

We saw Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard referrals had been applied for where restrictions on people’s care were necessary to keep people safe. The provider ensured DoLS were reviewed and applications made for renewal where necessary.