Woodville Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People’s needs were not always met. The service conducted activities; these did not always provide stimulation to people. Care plans were not always completed with a person-centred approach, with involvement of people and their relatives not always being evident. Some people did not feel that they were always given choice and control over their life. For example, people were not always supported to have a bath or shower as often as they would like. However, some people and relatives felt that they were given freedom, and their choices were respected. Relatives told us that visitors were encouraged within the home, and the home actively included relatives. For example, one relative told us the provider had a arranged a party for the persons birthday.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

A key worker system was implemented which allowed staff to get to know people, including their likes, dislikes and how they wished to be cared for. One staff explained this was how they were able to form close bonds with people. The manager explained they had good relationships with families and involved them in people’s care and support. They said resident and family meetings were held monthly which allowed people to feedback their views. The manager felt the service was very inclusive and worked hard to make people feel welcome, and not isolated.

The SOFI showed us that staff did not always have time to meet people’s requests. For example, one person asked 2 members of staff for a tissue. This was not provided as staff were taken away to support others. However, we did observe some staff support people to take part in an activity of their choosing and encouraging them to carry out this themselves. There did not seem to be activities on a regular basis which stimulated and engaged with people. People who were not able to leave their rooms did not have a programme of stimulation. People were given a choice of food but there were no obvious weekly menus on display for the people to see. People spoken with liked the carers and we observed some carers interacting well with the people. People told us they liked that they did not have a lot of agency staff. However, the provider told us that agency staff had not been used for 3 years.

A ‘getting to know me’ booklet was included in people’s assessments of their care and support needs. These helped staff to understand what was important to people. However, we found some evidence that information within care plans were not person centred. We did not always see evidence that people, or their families had been involved in care plan reviews.

We received mixed feedback about how people were supported to be independent and have choice and control over their day-to-day care and support. Two people told us they did not have a bath or shower as often as they would like. One person said, “I don’t get one when I want because they never have the time.” One person said they were supported to do the things they wanted to do, stating they enjoyed “The freedom to be allowed to choose what we want to do and not forced to do anything.” People fed back there were activities and outings to get involved in. Relatives told us that their family members were supported to make their own choices, and these were always respected. We were told how people were supported to maintain and promote their independence. For example, the home involved people in jobs around the home which they enjoyed. Relatives told us how people’s personal preferences were upheld, and people’s wishes are maintained. Relatives felt that visitors were encouraged at the home, and they were always made to feel welcome. A relative told us “They go the extra mile and include families”.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.