Woodway House

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 67 (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.

Relatives told us staff kept them informed when people’s needs changed and discussed any updates with them. One relative said, “I don’t remember a care plan review, but every time I come in, we discuss her needs or any changes, and they update me about anything.” The registered manager confirmed this approach and told us reviews were usually carried out over the phone, or any changes in a person’s needs were discussed with relatives when staff saw them in person.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

Food and fluid monitoring was not always completed accurately. For two people, charts did not clearly record what had been eaten or drunk. The deputy manager told us meals were being fortified, but this was not consistently documented or reflected in care records. We reviewed one person’s records, which showed their weight had remained stable over the past six months. The registered manager explained that the gaps identified were due to recording issues and would be discussed with staff.
People spoke positively about the quality of the food provided. Comments included, “The food is very good,” and, “Oh, the food is really nice. My favourite is gammon, beef burgers the other day were nice too.”

Staff used nationally recognised tools appropriately to assess and monitor people’s needs. For example, the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) was used to identify people from risk of malnutrition.

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.

People and their relatives told us staff worked well with external professionals to ensure people received the support they needed. One relative said, “Staff call the GP for [family member] and just update me. I know at any time I can ring and ask about them. I almost rang every day when they were in hospital, and it was so nice when [family member] came back to the home; staff were so welcoming.”

Staff told us there was effective communication and coordination within the team, supported by thorough handovers and good day‑to‑day collaboration. They also described positive working relationships with external professionals. One staff member said they had a good rapport with the district nursing team and were able to share concerns and receive feedback when needed.

One professional told us that staff recognised when a person’s health had changed and proactively requested a review of their needs. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people’s health needs and any emerging concerns, and were able to access relevant information quickly, such as recent weight changes.

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 were encouraged to take part in activities that supported their health and wellbeing, including regular exercise sessions. The activities coordinator told us these were offered both in groups and on a one‑to‑one basis to ensure people cared for in bed were also included. People we spoke with said there were activities available if they wished to join, including trips outside of the home. One person told us, “See the picture at the bottom on the wall, I coloured that one. We play bingo, we do singing, we have some people come in and they sing. I went on a trip out once. I like the bingo most; I play it with a lady who comes in.”

People had health action plans in place; however, these had not been updated following recent health appointments. The manager acknowledged this was a recording issue and assured us that relevant information, such as blood test results and blood pressure readings, had been shared with the appropriate professionals. A Health Action Plan is a personalised document that outlines a person’s health needs and agreed actions to support their ongoing wellbeing.

One professional told us that the manager and team are proactive in seeking advice and support from healthcare services. They gave an example where, during a ward round, a management plan was agreed that required input from district nurses, and the home had already actioned this before the ward round had finished. They also said staff knew people well, raised concerns early, and requested timely reviews for example, asking for a follow‑up after a person completed a course of antibiotics.

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

Where people required monitoring, for example those at risk of skin breakdown, staff had systems in place, including repositioning people at set intervals. However, when we reviewed repositioning charts, staff had not always recorded care delivered in line with people’s care records. Despite this there was no known issues with their skin, suggesting staff were completing the required actions but not consistently recording them. We discussed this with the registered manager who said this was a recording issue and said it would be addressed with staff at the next team meeting.

The provider respected people’s rights when delivering care and treatment, however the documentation in relation to capacity assessment and best interest decisions needed to be improved.

People’s capacity to make their own decisions had been considered. However, assessments were not always decision‑specific and often lacked detail about how people had been supported to understand the decision being made for example for covert medication and the use of bedrails. In some cases, documentation did not clearly show who had been consulted as part of the decision‑making process. This is important because clear, accurate records are required to demonstrate that decisions are made lawfully and in line with each person’s rights and best interests.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of respecting people’s wishes and decisions, including when a person lacked mental capacity.