Woodthorpe Lodge

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 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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The provider had recently reviewed pre-admission assessment processes to ensure these were sufficiently robust and helped to identify people’s needs, wishes and preferences. Processes had also been developed to identify if the service was able to meet people’s needs prior to any admission. People, their relatives and relevant agencies were involved and consulted as part of the assessment processes. Staff were provided with information and guidance through handovers and digital care plans. People and relatives told us, “I’ve been on respite here a few times; we do some paperwork each time” and “My relative sees to our paperwork. Staff do a ‘resident of the day’ and ask if you’re satisfied or need anything.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The provider used a range of approved health and social care tools to assess people’s needs and ensure they were receiving the correct care and treatment. For example, tools to assess people’s skin integrity ensured actions were taken to minimise the risk of wounds developing. The provider also made good use of the malnutrition universal screening tool, (MUST) to protect people from the risk of malnutrition and weight loss. People were weighed at least monthly and their foods fortified if required (this increases the nutritional value and calories of a meal).

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. The provider had systems and processes in place which staff followed to promote effective communication and working with other agencies. Staff described positive, supportive teamwork within the staff team.

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 and relatives described how staff supported them to stay healthy. One person told us, “I had a fall here, I just fell wrong. It was a long wait for an ambulance and the carer stayed with me all that time and made sure I got the right treatment.” A second person told us, “They’ve called the doctor in the few times I’ve needed it.” People were able to access a range of activities which provided stimulation in addition to access to outdoors spaces and group trips within the local community. However, some people felt the activity provision had declined. They told us, “There’s not something on every day. I like a quiz or playing cards with someone. I just wish I could go out places more in a wheelchair” and “It’s gone off a bit to be honest. There used to be two activity staff, but they’ve left. Now there is one, but they can’t do it all. I like chair exercises and throwing games but don’t join in much else.” The provider told us they were addressing concerns through recruitment but had implemented interim arrangements in the meantime.

The provider monitored people’s care and treatment to identify where improvements were needed. We saw people were supported to have a balanced diet and encouraged to have enough to eat and drink, though some people felt improvements were needed to meals times. People told us, “I’ve got a poor appetite and don’t think we get enough good vegetables really. The cook doesn’t always stick to the menus,” “It’s always been good and it’s a bit more adventurous now” and “The food is often tepid by the time it gets to [Name] room, and it can be hard to chew.” We raised this feedback with the management team who told us they would review mealtimes to make improvements. People were supported to keep hydrated and where they were at risk of poor hydration or malnutrition, monitoring was put in place. We found monitoring records for people’s food intake did not provide effective oversight. For example, records showed what was offered but lacked detail around what was consumed, other than vague terms such as ‘ate most of it’. The management team told us they would address this following our inspection visit. People and relatives were able to describe positive outcomes including arranging appointments and transport so people could attend health services of their choice to maintain their wellbeing.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s capacity to make decisions and choices, and the support they needed, had been assessed and recorded in line with the mental capacity act. However, some assessments required further review to ensure these were updated in a timely way in response to changes in people’s needs and to reflect where people may experience fluctuating capacity. For example, we found daily care notes evidenced a person needed more support to make decisions and choices that contradicted information in their mental capacity assessment. This meant MCA may not be accurate and presented a risk people were not receiving the support they needed to make informed decisions. We raised this with the management team who told us they would review MCAs to ensure these were accurate and up to date. We could not assess the impact of these improvements at the time of this assessment. People and relatives told us staff sought consent before providing care, were supported to make choices and staff respected their decisions. A person told us, “I find the staff polite and will always ask before helping me”. We observed staff respected people’s choices and were receptive when people shared their views and wishes. Care plans contained evidence of consent from people or their representatives where appropriate and best interest processes were followed.