Woodside

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 service met people’s needs.At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service was exceptional at making 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. Care and support were designed around each person’s wishes, values, goals, and life history. Care needs were anticipated as staff had a deep understanding of the person’s communication style, interests, culture, and preferences. Relatives consistently told us their family members received highly personalised care. They described staff as knowing people extremely well and taking time to understand what mattered to them as individuals. Relatives said staff actively involved them in decisions, welcomed their input, and encouraged them to remain closely involved in people’s care. One relative said, “The time [person] has lived here has been incredible. I have never seen them so happy and living such an enriched life. I truly couldn’t wish for anything more.” Another relative said, “They are on top of everything and always looking for new opportunities and experiences for [person], who is at the centre of everything.” Staff told us they had access to detailed, person‑centred information which enabled them to provide safe, continuous, and consistent care while promoting choice, control, and independence. The provider used an electronic care planning system, which ensured information was updated in real time. This meant staff were always working with the most current information and could respond quickly and flexibly to changes in people’s needs or wishes. A staff member said, “Everyone has their own likes, dislikes, interests and this is at the heart of everything we do. The care plans reflect them and ensures as a team we are delivering the care the way the people want.” We observed care being delivered in line with people’s care plans and personal preferences throughout the inspection. Staff routinely offered people meaningful choices and respected their decisions, adapting their support in a way that promoted dignity and autonomy. Interactions between staff and people were warm, respectful, and unrushed and reflected strong, trusting relationships. People were relaxed, comfortable, and confident with staff. We saw staff using a calm, caring approach, engaging people in conversation, and responding sensitively to non‑verbal cues. Relatives told us they always felt welcome at Woodside and said staff were friendly, open, and inclusive. Woodside hosted many events for the people and families. This included regular quiz nights, hosting mother’s day lunch, an annual sporting tournaments and much more. Person‑centred care at Woodside was exceptionally well embedded.

The service understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People could access the care and support they required. This included seeing their doctor. Relatives told us they were confident in the staff to summon additional medical support if needed. The staff worked with each other and health and social care professionals to support continuity in care. People could access the care and support they required. Staff told us how important it was to work with other professionals. Records showed input by healthcare professionals. Care plans and risk assessments were written in accordance with professional input. This helped to ensure people’s needs were met. Health and social care professionals told us staff followed their instructions, and staff would raise concerns regarding a person’s health and wellbeing. We received positive feedback from health and social care professionals. A health and social care professional said, “The service is always responsive to my questions whether via email, phone or face to face. If they have any concerns related to individuals, I am confident they will contact me or the appropriate service. We have worked together to adjust things to better suit individual residents.”

The service supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information about how a person communicated was detailed in people’s care plans and risk assessments.People’s communication needs were met and reviewed to support their care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication. This meant information was tailored to people’s individual needs.

The service made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. Relatives told us they felt their family members were involved in their care, and where appropriate relatives were also consulted. The provider had a complaints policy in place and information on how to complain was displayed in the service in an easy read format. The provider carried out regular meetings with people which were tailored to their communication needs. Records showed a number of various topics were discussed, such as discussions around the home, activities, holidays, events, food and drink. Each meeting had a specific topic and the feedback from people shaped the direction of the service. Relatives told us they were provided with opportunities to give feedback about the service and were involved with decisions about people’s care. A relative told us, “Communication is almost daily with the service, I am constantly updated with what my loved one is up to, as well as emails from the management team about more important topics.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.Relatives told us their family members received care and support, which was accessible, timely, and considered their individual needs. Staff were aware of any reasonable adjustments people needed to engage fully into life at the service. Staff recognised the importance of people not facing barriers to access health and social care services. Health and social care professionals provided positive feedback to the service about how well staff worked with them. The premises were accessible to people with mobility needs. Staff provided people with any support they needed to communicate.

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. People were treated fairly, and their rights were respected, their relatives agreed.Staff told us they knew people well and they showed an awareness of people’s individual needs, their differences, likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff told us how they supported people to meet their religious and cultural needs. The provider had a policy on equity and diversity. People's care plans were person centred and set out aspects of people's characteristics, beliefs and preferences to ensure people's equality characteristics and needs were respected.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they and their relatives could have enough time to make informed decisions about the future, including at the end of their life. People had recorded their future wishes. Care plans were in place for end of life care. These plans were person centred and detailed. The service had given people and their relatives every opportunity to express their wishes. Staff understood how to support people at the end of their life and the importance to meet their wishes and preferences. At the time of this inspection the service was not supporting anybody who was receiving care during the final stages of life.