Woodway House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

This service scored 75 (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.

One relative told us they were satisfied with how staff supported their family member’s personal presentation. They said the person “always looks nice and smells nice” and explained they had asked staff to coordinate their clothing, which staff did. They also told us the service made reasonable adjustments as the person’s needs changed. For example, when their family member’s mobility declined, they requested a move to a downstairs room, and this was arranged to help maintain the person’s comfort and independence.

Whilst care plans included information about people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, these required further development. However, staff we spoke with were able to describe some of these needs and how they supported people in practice.

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.

Most people told us they were able to access health professionals when needed. People had regular contact with the visiting GP, and staff advocated on behalf of those who were unable to communicate their needs to ensure they received appropriate healthcare support.

A relative told us they valued the continuity of the staff team, explaining that the same core staff continued to provide care. They said there had been no significant changes in staffing and that they never walked in and felt unsure about who was supporting their family member.

One professional told us that staff discussed which external services were needed to support people and worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals to ensure referrals were completed. They said that when additional support was identified, the team acted on this promptly.

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

Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs and understood how to support each person. The provider was aware of the Accessible Information Standard and, where required, was able to provide information in formats that took account of people’s communication preferences. This helped ensure people could understand the information given to them and express their views in a way that suited them.

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 told us they felt able to raise concerns if needed. One relative said they had no current worries but felt confident they could speak to the registered manager straight away and that any issues would be listened to and addressed. They gave an example of a previous concern about clothing, which had been resolved promptly. The registered manager told us there had been no formal complaints, but they had taken our feedback positively and reviewed some of the issues we identified under their complaint’s procedure.

The provider had carried out a quality survey to gather feedback about the service. People and their relatives were asked for their views on the care and support they received. Analysis of the responses showed that people and their relatives were satisfied with the service and the support provided.

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 services when needed. This included routine eye checks and dental care, and a chiropodist visited the service regularly. The home had a positive working relationship with the local GP surgery, which carried out weekly rounds and also attended outside these times when required. District nurses also visited to provide additional clinical support. This helped ensure people’s health needs were met promptly.

People’s protected characteristics, as described in the Equality Act 2010, were considered during assessment and throughout the care and support provided. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s protected characteristics and how these should be considered in day‑to‑day support. Staff had received relevant training, and the service had a diverse staff team.

One professional told us they were able to contact senior staff easily and that staff responded promptly when they attended the service. They said staff also provided requested information without delay.

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.

The registered manager described how concerns relating to discrimination and inequality were identified and addressed within the service. They gave an example where a person was admitted to hospital and was temporarily unable to take oral medication. Community health professionals initially advised that medication should not be administered, and the person’s condition began to deteriorate due to an infection. The registered manager told us they challenged this decision as they felt the person should not be denied appropriate treatment. Following further discussion with the GP and the person’s family, a plan was agreed to ensure the individual continued to receive appropriate pain relief to maintain their comfort. The registered manager said this showed their commitment to ensuring decisions were made fairly and in the person’s best interests.

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.

Relatives told us that discussions about people’s future wishes and end‑of‑life care took place where appropriate. People’s care records included information about their future plans and preferences for end‑of‑life care. At the time of our inspection, no one was receiving end‑of‑life support. Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions and Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms in place. For others, information was recorded about their funeral arrangements and preferred providers. This helped ensure people’s wishes would be understood and respected should their needs change.