Woodlands Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to governance at the service.The provider had failed to establish and operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Systems were not effective in addressing risks, ensuring compliance with policies, and driving sustained improvements.

This service scored 54 (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 have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

There was not always a clear or shared direction for the service. Limited provider involvement had impacted the development of a positive culture, and there were no clearly defined values to support staff in delivering consistent care.

Not all leaders understood the context in which the provider delivered care, treatment and support. They did not always embody the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, or they did not always do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

A new registered manager was in post. Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and told us they felt the service was moving in the right direction under their leadership.

However, improvements were not always implemented in a timely way. For example, although concerns about care plans had been identified in February 2026, this remained an issue at the time of the inspection. An action plan had not been developed until it was requested during the inspection, which showed that greater momentum was needed to drive improvements. While some actions had been identified and discussed, these were not always formally recorded or tracked, which made it difficult to demonstrate sustained progress.

The service was not always working in line with its own policies. For example, the provider’s accessibility policy stated that people would be involved in care planning, but there was no evidence this was taking place.

While the registered manager was visible in the service, there was limited oversight from the provider. The provider had not identified or addressed cultural concerns from previous leadership and had tended to respond to issues after they arose rather than taking a proactive approach.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and were confident these would be listened to.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Policies were in place to support equality, diversity and inclusion. Staff told us they felt they were treated fairly within the service.

Governance, management and sustainability

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They did not act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Governance systems were not always effective.

The service was not consistently working in line with its policies, and key risks had not been addressed in a timely way, such as outstanding fire safety concerns. There was also a lack of effective oversight, as concerns identified during the inspection had not been recognised or acted on by the registered manager or provider.

There was a lack of formal provider oversight. Although regular meetings took place with directors, these were not formally recorded, and there were no clear action plans in place to monitor progress or drive improvements. This meant that, while some actions were being discussed and taken, there was limited evidence to demonstrate how improvements were planned, tracked and sustained.

Other governance systems were limited. For example, there was no formal monitoring of staffing levels, and systems were not in place to audit call bell response times. In addition, issues with access to NHS email systems meant important information may not have been received or managed securely, and there was no assurance that previous staff no longer had access.

Policies were basic and developed in-house, although there were plans to move to externally managed systems. Medicines practices were aligned to local authority guidance.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The service did not always work effectively in partnership with other organisations to support people’s care.

There were examples where staff and management had not worked proactively with external professionals. For example, there had been delays in acting on advice from healthcare professionals and a lack of coordinated working with the GP practice when a person’s medicine was not available. This meant people did not always receive timely or appropriate care.

We also found that, in some cases, concerns about people’s care had needed to be identified by external professionals before action was taken. This showed that partnership working was not always effective in identifying and responding to people’s needs.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

Systems were in place to identify learning from incidents. However, there was limited provider oversight to ensure learning was embedded and sustained.

There was no clear evidence of how the provider planned to develop and improve the service. This meant improvements were not always driven forward, and opportunities to enhance the quality of care people received were missed.