Woodside Lodge

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

We assessed 1 quality statement from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question has deteriorated to requires improvement. We found the provider was failing to meet their legal requirements and were in breach of regulation. The provider failed to ensure people consistently received person-centred care, or that some aspect of the care provided to people overnight was appropriate and in-line with best practice guidance. People were not able to independently access areas of there home, and access to outdoor spaces were limited.

This service scored 62 (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.

We received feedback from a person during our on-site visit that they would like to access the garden, but it was "Closed." A relative commented that they did not see people access the garden spaces and another relative said, "The garden is fenced off and only accessible if there is enough care." People and relatives told us activities that were provided were enjoyable, however some people commented they would like to see more outings. Relatives told us they were able to visit their loved one at any time, however felt communication about their loved one’s care could be improved. Comments included, "I wouldn’t know [updates] unless I asked.", and "The caring is brilliant but I don’t know about issues until go and visit."

Staff told us that bed baths and personal care were normal practice in the early hours of the morning for some people. Comments included, "We start to get people up and dressed at 6am, sometimes we wake them but we try not to." and, “Bed bound patients get bed baths by night staff. It means they get more time for them, and [staff] can give them their full attention and get dressed and have clean sheets and bedding." Following our feedback, leaders of the service told us they were monitoring staff practice to ensure care provided was responsive to people’s needs and not routinely carried out where this was not necessary.

We observed people were unable to have choice and control to access all aspects of their home. For example, during the assessment we noted due to on-site works a large proportion of the outdoor space had been fenced off. People could access an outdoor marquee area, however this relied on people having support and supervision from staff. During our on-site assessment visits, we did not observe people using outdoor spaces. We observed the communal dining area of the home did not provide enough adequate seating to allow everyone who lived at the home to access the dining room together for meals. For example, there were 20 people living at the service at the time of this assessment and there was only enough seating to accommodate 8 people observed. We observed people participate in an exercise class activity during our on-site visit. People seemed to enjoy the sessions and engaged with the instructor.

Care was not always demonstrated to be provided in a person-centred manner, or in a way that promoted people’s choice and control. We reviewed records of the care provided to some people living at the home and found evidence that staff were supporting some people with full personal care in the early hours of the morning, including hair washing, clothing and bed changes. There was no evidence within the individuals care plans that indicated this level of care was in people’s best interest or that this was the person's choice. We were not assured staff always delivered care in a person-centred approach where records evidenced people expressed refusal or distress. Where information indicated people were at risk of improper treatment, we shared our concerns with the local authority and sought assurances from the provider that immediate actions were taken. Guidance for staff in relation to their role and duties did not always empower staff to ensure that they promoted people's choice and control. Improvements were required to ensure staff always upheld people's privacy and dignity when care was provided. For example, we found a communal shower that was in use did not have a shower curtain in place to promote people’s privacy and dignity, although the main door was lockable. People had some opportunities to access in-house activities which included staff led such as games, bingo and planned sessions with tribute singers and keep fit.

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.