Woodlands Court Care Home

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Risk assessments had been reviewed and were up to date. However, care plans had not always been updated in line with risk assessments, or information was not recorded in the correct place. This meant they did not always fully identify the care people needed. An action plan for improving care plans had been put in place by the registered manager and a dedicated member of staff had been given protected time to improve the care plans.

In some care plans, sections such as “what is important to me” had not been completed. This meant staff may not have had all the information needed to provide care that reflected people’s individual preferences.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care was not always well coordinated or delivered consistently. Care plans were not always up to date or clearly structured, which meant staff did not always have easy access to guidance. There were also delays in following advice from external healthcare professionals and a lack of proactive working with services such as the GP when issues arose.

This meant people did not always receive timely, coordinated or consistent care.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People were not always supported to access information in a way that met their needs.

Care plans identified people’s communication needs; however, they did not clearly set out how staff should support people to access information sent to them by health care professionals. For example, there was no guidance on whether staff should assist people with their mail or whether this was managed by relatives.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was no evidence of resident or relatives’ meetings taking place, and no surveys had been completed or were available to review. This meant people and their families were not routinely given the opportunity to share their views or influence the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People generally had equitable access to the service. The environment supported mobility as it was on one level, and people were supported to access mobility aids where needed. However, the environment did not fully support people to be independent. There was a lack of signage, and corridors were not clearly identified through names or colour, which could make it difficult for people, particularly those living with dementia, to navigate the home independently.

However, systems to support equal access were not always fully effective. Information about people’s communication needs did not always include clear guidance for staff on how to support people to access information. This meant some people may not have received information in a way they could understand.

In addition, the lack of consistent involvement of people and their relatives in care planning meant people may not always have had equal opportunity to influence the care and support they received.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

People did not always receive timely or equitable outcomes.

There had been delays in following recommendations from external healthcare professionals. For example, a recommendation made in November 2025 for a person to be supported using a hoist into a comfortable chair had not been implemented until the end of January. This meant the person did not receive appropriate support in a timely way.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People were supported to plan for their future care needs.

People’s end of life wishes were recorded in their care plans. Respect forms were in place, outlining people’s preferences for treatment. Anticipatory medicines were available where needed to support people at the end of their lives.