Woodfield Care Home Limited

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

During the assessment we reviewed 3 peoples care records and identified individual preferences and what was important to the person, meaning they were at the centre of their care. When changes were made, staff were updated during daily shift handovers or via senior staff.

Relatives told us they were kept informed about people’s care and had opportunities to be involved in discussions and reviews. They described staff as listening to their views and supporting care in a way that reflected people’s preferences.

A staff member told us, “Person-centred care is all about the individual and their needs.”

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.

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.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure peoples care was reviewed regularly and updated. The provider shared information and changes with staff and external health professionals where required to ensure people consistently received the correct care and support.

We saw evidence of a diverse range of activities available to people, including ones specifically aimed at females living with Dementia.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information that was tailored to individual needs.

We asked the registered manager if accessible formats were available and being used at the time of the assessment and they said the service was not currently providing care to anyone with such needs.

People had their communication needs documents in their care plans which supported staff to communicate with them in a way they would understand.

We observed positive interactions between staff and people, with staff speaking to people in a kind and respectful way and adapting their approach during day‑to‑day interactions. This supported people to express their views and be involved in their care.

The provider made it easy for people 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 and their relatives were listened to and involved in decisions about their care. There were opportunities for people and their relatives to share feedback, including through meetings conversations with staff and in writing, which was displayed on the wall of the communal lounge.

People’s views were used this to inform care and improve the service.

A relative told us, “I spent time doing [person’s] care plan with a member of staff and I must admit, the system is excellent and there was a lot of information on there. I was very impressed and felt involved.”

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

People were supported to access healthcare professionals, including GPs, nurses and specialist services. Staff understood the importance of adapting support, for example, following a lift breakdown in the home a contingency plan was put into place which ensured people could access communal areas. Relatives and staff told us people could access activities and adjustments were made if necessary to support inclusion.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Although staff had received equality and diversity training, not all people experienced the same level of care.

Records showed some people were not always able to access meaningful activities, especially those with cognitive impairment. This meant some people did not have equal access to activities and experiences. The provider acknowledged this and provided some assurance; however, improvements were required to ensure all people had access to activities and meaningful experiences.

Systems were in place to ensure people could access care, support and treatment from external agencies when required.

No concerns regarding equality were raised by people or their families.

People were 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.

Processes were in place to support ongoing discussions and reviews, including involving people and their relatives in care planning. This supported a person-centred approach to planning for the future and helped ensure people’s wishes were understood.

People’s future wishes, including end of life care had been included in care reviews. This helped ensure people and their relatives had opportunities to express their wishes.