Woodland 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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate.

This meant services were not planned or delivered in ways that met people’s needs.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to dignity and person centred care.
 

This service scored 36 (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 did not make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not receive support aligned with their preferences, interests and goals.

Activities identified within plans often did not occur in practice. Goals were not consistently reviewed or progressed. Support records demonstrated limited evidence that people were at the centre of planning and decision-making. One person's care plan identified swimming, bowling and library visits as important activities. Records showed these activities had seldom occurred during the last 3 months despite repeated references in support plans. Another person’s care plan stated they should be offered activities outside the home twice a day together with sensory support. Daily records did not demonstrate this was occurring consistently or meaningfully.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Daily records indicated care plans were not always followed. Communication needs, sensory strategies and behavioural support approaches were not consistently implemented, reducing continuity of care.
 

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Communication tools and social stories were available but not routinely used, (a social story is a short, personalised story that uses simple text and pictures to explain social situations, events, or routines). We saw staff primarily relied upon verbal communication even where people required visual or alternative communication support.

One person's care plan stated they communicated using limited language and benefited from communication aids. During the inspection, we saw staff relied solely on verbal communication, including when offering choices and explaining delays. No visual prompts or communication tools were used. This reduced people's opportunities to understand information and make choices.
 

The provider did not make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People's views and requests were not consistently sought or acted upon. One person’s relative said, “I don't feel the home are communicating well with me, it feels like I'm having to initiate discussions.”

There was limited evidence of systems specifically designed to obtain feedback from people who used the service, particularly those who did not communicate verbally.
 

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure staff would be able to support people to access additional support should it be required. People were generally supported to access routine healthcare appointments and other support services; however, staff had not always identified when people required acute support. This meant people were not supported to access appropriate services promptly to prevent deterioration in their health and wellbeing.
 

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

Safeguarding concerns were not always identified or reported. Documentation regarding instances of emotional distress and staff response people’s health needs was often incomplete or ineffective.

People were not consistently supported to access the community, participate in meaningful activities or achieve outcomes comparable to other members of society. Community participation was often limited and repetitive.
 

People were not always supported by staff who understood the importance of helping them 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.

Future planning arrangements were underdeveloped. Limited evidence existed that people were actively supported to discuss long-term aspirations or future wishes using their preferred communication methods.