Woodrow Retirement Home Limited

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 75 (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. People’s needs were assessed using recognised assessment tools and were regularly reviewed.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. Because staff had not completed regular training, they were not always aware of current guidance or good practice. For example, staff were not aware of International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) and so people were at risk of not having their meals prepared in line with their individual needs. This increased people’s risk of choking. We saw some approaches to people living with dementia were not in line with best practice. For example, in the way staff responded to a person living with dementia when they were confused about their reality.

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. Staff had good working relationships with visiting health professionals. One health professional told us staff always had the information they needed to hand, the atmosphere was generally calm and the staff were always helpful when they visited.

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 were involved in planning their own care where appropriate, and people told us they felt well supported. One person was supported to remain active and socialise, their relative told us, “They use a wheelchair, but [staff] take them where they want to go. When they go to church, they meet other people out of the home.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The manager did not routinely monitor people’s care and the systems in the home didn’t support them to have good oversight. However, they felt confident that because of the small size of the service there had been no negative impact on people.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Capacity assessments were completed as appropriate and staff acted in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.