Woodlands Court 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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. People and their relatives were generally positive about the kindness and support provided by staff and said they felt treated with respect. However, people’s day-to-day experience was not always consistently engaging, personalised or responsive, with missed opportunities to enhance social interaction and quality of life.

This service scored 55 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us the staff were kind. One person told us, “The staff are good and the care is done well.” A relative said, “The care is brilliant, [Staff] are really good with [Name].”

Staff spoke kindly to people and were able to describe how they supported people’s dignity. Interactions observed were respectful, and staff demonstrated an understanding of how to treat people with compassion.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Care and support, particularly at mealtimes, was task-focused rather than person-centred. During the lunch service, people were referred to by their room numbers rather than by their names, which was not respectful.

The dining experience did not promote dignity or choice. Plate covers were too large and touched the food, and meals and desserts were served at the same time, with no systems in place to keep food at the correct temperature.

The environment also did not always promote dignity. For example, the hair washing sink was located within a toilet area, which was not appropriate. In addition, people’s personal laundry was transported in a wheelie bin from a separate building, which did not support a dignified approach to handling personal belongings.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always supported to maintain their independence, choice and control.

Activities were limited, and while some one-to-one support took place, there were no planned group activities to support people to build relationships and reduce social isolation. The registered manager confirmed there was no structured activity schedule, with activities taking place on a day-to-day basis. External entertainers visited once a month. One person told us, “There’s not many group activities, we get a singer in about once a month. I’ve got my own interests like knitting and crosswords so I’m quite happy.”

This meant opportunities for people to engage in meaningful activity and maintain independence were limited.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Care plans did not always provide clear guidance to support staff to meet people’s needs.

For example, one care plan stated that a person required reassurance and comfort but also noted that they did not respond to reassurance. There was no further guidance provided on what approaches would be effective, which meant staff did not have clear direction on how to support the person.

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff were happy and told us they felt supported and able to raise any concerns with he registered manager. However, staff had not received regular appraisals, which meant they did not have formal opportunities to discuss their performance, workload or any concerns. The provider’s wellbeing policy was basic and did not clearly support staff wellbeing in practice.

This meant systems were not in place to fully support staff, which could impact on the care provided to people.