Woodford 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

We assessed all the quality statements in the key question of responsive and found improvements had been made. People were now receiving personalised care from staff who knew them well. People had access to appropriate health professionals. People were supported to plan for their future care and decide what they wanted if their health deteriorated. People and relatives told they felt listened to and any concerns raised were dealt with quickly. Staff told us they worked to make sure people had the same experiences and outcomes as those who did not live in residential care. People received information in a way they could understand.

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.

Relatives told us that people received care that was centred on them and their specific needs and they were involved in shared decisions. One relative said “[Their] name is on the door, it’s more personalised” and added “If anything changes, then I get a phone call immediately, we decide what to do about it”.

Staff told us because they had a smaller number of people living at the service at the present time, they had more time to spend with them, getting to know them well. We saw staff chatting with people about their interests and engaging in conversation. Staff asked people how they would like things done and we saw them respect people’s choices, such as if they wanted to join in an activity.

We observed staff supporting people in the way they preferred. People’s food preferences were considered and they were asked if they wished to make a choice. Staff asked people how they would like things done, if they wanted help, and where they preferred to sit.

People told us they were supported to access other services effectively, such as eye tests.

Staff told us how they supported people to access the healthcare they needed to maintain their health and independence. They told us they supported people to access various professional services, either by arranging visits to the service or by supporting people attend appointments. The staff we spoke with understood their responsibilities in making sure people were able to see the healthcare professionals who could give them the best advice and treatment.

Healthcare professionals we spoke with told us people were appropriately referred to them and staff supported people to follow the advice and guidance given.

There was evidence that people had received the appropriate healthcare and treatment when they needed it. Staff knew the processes to follow to access services as people needed them. There were no delays in referring people to the appropriate healthcare services.

People and their families didn’t express any concerns regarding access to information.

Staff told us because they had a smaller number of people living at the service, they had more time to spend with them, getting to know them well. This included their communication needs. Staff told us that some people had difficulty understanding verbal questions or instructions. Because they knew people well, they knew how to support each individual in the best way. Staff gave examples of finding reference points, speaking clearly in short sentences, trying at a different time later, using pictures or photographs.

Signposting to help people get to different parts of the services, such as the lounge or toilet were displayed around, with pictures to make it easier for some people who may not recognise wording. Toilets and bathrooms had picture signs on them. Menus were displayed in photograph format as well as written. Information on notice boards were in easy read format such as how to complain, or safeguarding and what activities were available.

Relatives told us that issues or concerns raised with the service would be acted upon. One relative told us “They review [them] every month and ask me if I have concerns” and another added “We were involved in [their] recent care meetings”.

Staff had listened to people and their relatives when issues were raised with them and tried to resolve their concern. When they couldn’t find a resolution straight away they had informed a senior member of staff. “We don’t want anyone to be feeling worried about something, no matter what it is”.

All complaints were well set out in a file, making it easier to monitor and check for themes. There had been 4 complaints in the last 12 months. One written complaint from a relative and 3 verbal complaints, from people and relatives. The verbal complaints had been raised with staff members who did what they could to resolve the complaints first, then escalated to the registered manager. Complaints had been dealt with appropriately. The registered manager had carried out an investigation, evidenced by clear records, with an outcome and response to the complainant. Lessons learnt following completion of the investigation had been recorded in detail and shared with staff.

People’s families told us their loved ones could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that works for them.

Staff told us there were no barriers to people accessing the service.

We did not have any feedback from partners that would suggest people were not able to access the care and support at the service.

There were no barriers to people being referred or admitted to Woodford House. People moved into the service usually either from their home or from a healthcare setting. People’s needs were assessed before moving in to the service and they would only be turned down for a place if the registered manager thought staff did not have the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

People and their relatives felt respected and treated equally by the staff. We received comments from relatives such as “I think they are doing a very good job”, “Staff are absolutely magnificent” and “I can’t thank them enough”.

Staff said they listened to people’s concerns and acted to put things right if they could. They alerted the registered manager if it was something they could not deal with. Staff fed back to senior staff when people’s needs were changing and the care plan needed to be updated. Staff told us this meant they could access appropriate support and advice outside of the service when it was needed.

The provider’s policies and procedures provided guidance for staff. People and their relatives were encouraged to feedback and give their views through meetings, survey and through a complaints procedure. The registered manager had a process to learn lessons from feedback such as following complaints and accidents or incidents. Surveys were analysed by the provider and an action plan developed for the registered manager to follow in order to make improvements where these were highlighted by people or relatives. People who were able to were regularly asked about their care. Relatives were asked for their involvement in people’s care plans. Evidence of people’s involvement could be set out more clearly in people’s care plans.

People’s relatives told us their loved ones were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care whilst they had the capacity to do so. Family members told us, “They have been so supportive and caring” and another added “When we’ve asked for support it’s done promptly and with good grace”.

Staff told us they spoke with people and their families to understand their wishes for the future.

People had care plans in place so people could set out what they would like to happen leading up to and at the end of their life. Some were more detailed than others. This was because some people did not want to talk in detail about this area of their care plan. So some were developed over time to go at each individual’s own pace. Hospice teams, who were skilled in supporting people at the end of their life, visited people and gave advice to staff when needed. The registered manager referred to the team when people’s health deteriorated to make sure people got the right, pain free care.