Woodhall 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.

The service is not scored or rated.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

All children were seen weekly or fortnightly by a registered nurse. Some of the children had regular occupational therapy. Children received physical monitoring weekly for health including weight monitoring. We saw evidence that children had made good progress with health, including improved diet, weight loss and improved management of long-term health conditions.

Children were supported to understand their health needs. There was an ‘All about me’ one page sheet in each child’s folder that used symbols and simple language to describe the child’s likes, dislikes, how they communicate and what kind of help and support they needed. This was done in collaboration with the child and the occupational therapist.

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.

We saw evidence that the children, parents, carers and external stakeholders, including social workers and commissioners, were invited to contribute to children’s care planning and risk reviews. This meant there was a holistic understanding of the child’s needs and progress, and information was shared regularly and effectively.

Children had access to an in-house multi-disciplinary physical and mental health team that included psychiatrists, a speciality doctor, a psychologist, a systemic therapist, an occupational therapist and nurses. Children accessed the GP, dentist and optician in the community and attended a range of specialist tertiary services according to their health needs.

We saw in the clinical records that children’s care was regularly reviewed and discussed by the multi-disciplinary team in order to achieve the best outcomes for the children. For example, Consultants Psychiatrists sought advice from psychiatry colleagues and pharmacy specialists following reviews of care. Care and treatment was amended in conjunction with the child and multi-disciplinary team and symptoms and presentation were closely monitored. There was robust clinical oversight and management to help ensure positive outcomes for the child.

We saw evidence in children’s files that they were receiving appropriate clinical assessment and investigations for a range of physical health conditions.

All children had a sensitive psychological formulation which were shared with all staff involved with the child. This meant that staff understood the child’s lived experience.

Children’s records included details of incidents and de-escalation techniques used.

Some of the children had Education and Health Care Plans and we saw that staff in the home contribute to the annual reviews.

We looked at care plans in children’s records and saw that they were reviewed regularly – at least every three months and monthly for some children. There was a clear process in place for the cycle of when documents need to be reviewed, including risk reviews, nursing reports, and physical health care plans. We saw that children were involved the writing of the care plan.

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.

We saw evidence of effective collaborative working. There was a robust governance and leadership structure including health, care and education. We saw evidence of regular and effective information-sharing within the team including with GPs.

Daily multi-disciplinary team meetings were documented which described the child’s day including key-working sessions, education and staff reflections for the day. These multi-disciplinary notes were available to all staff to review. We saw evidence that multi-disciplinary team meetings also took place every six to eight weeks. The meetings included the clinical team, registered manager, social worker, external clinicians including GPs and parent/carers. Commissioners and other stakeholders were also invited. The child’s social worker was sent a copy of the care plan.

We were told that Consultants placed great importance on getting the right people to attend the multi-disciplinary team meetings to ensure there was effective information sharing and oversight. This meant that all relevant people in the child’s life were able to contribute to their support and were up to date with the current situation. Every two weeks there was a multi-disciplinary check-in for each child and the Consultants reviewed each child monthly.

We saw minutes of meetings where staff had the opportunity to voice any concerns. We saw actions taken following these concerns.

Children’s wishes and preferences were recorded in records. Children co-created their care plans with the support of practitioners including the Occupational Therapist. An ‘all about me’ one page sheet in child’s folder used symbols and simple language to describe each child’s likes, dislikes, how they communicated and what kind of help and support they need.

When a child’s next setting was identified there was careful and thorough transition planning to support a safe and co-ordinated transition. However, for some children it was not clear from care planning and multi-disciplinary meetings records what was discussed about transition planning and next arrangements. Despite this staff we spoke with were aware of the plan for each child.

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.

Children were encouraged to live healthier lives. They collectively agreed their weekly menu and were involved in food shopping and preparation.

Children’s needs and lived experiences were understood through sensitive psychological formulations by a Clinical Psychologist or Systemic Therapist. This supported staff to see situations through the eyes of the child and understand what was important to them.

We saw evidence of staff advising children to make healthy choices in the records.

All children were seen weekly or fortnightly by a registered practitioner, depending on their own individual needs. Children received physical monitoring weekly for health including weight monitoring. We saw examples of where children had made good progress with managing their health, including improved diet, weight loss and improved management of long-term conditions.

The judgement for Monitoring and improving outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.

The judgement for Consent to care and treatment is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Effective key question.