- Care home
Woking Homes
Assessment report published 19 August 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Woking Homes is a residential care home predominantly for retired railway personnel and their families. People without a railway connection are also welcome to live there. The service is a registered charity with a board of trustees. The home can accommodate up to 51 people. At the time of our inspection there were 48people living at the service, some of whom were living with dementia.
We carried out this assessment on 30 July 2026.The service was last inspected in July and August 2019 and was rated good overall. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
People were supported to take part in a range of activities, although these were usually group activities rather than personalised, because only one activity coordinator was on duty each day. Some people described activities as ‘samey’ or ‘boring’ whilst others told us they were happy with activity provision.
The environment was not sufficiently developed to meet the needs of people living with dementia, for example, there was very little visible signage to help people orient themselves around the home, most bedroom doors did not have the person’s name at the height they could see this, and there were no sensory or tactile objects for people to touch and feel.
Whilst we observed good and respectful care throughout our visit, we also observed care that was not person-centred where staff focused on tasks rather than the person they were supporting.
We discussed our findings with the registered manager and the chief executive who provided evidence they took prompt action to make the necessary improvements following our inspection.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions. They had choice, control and freedom over their lives.
People were supported by enough staff who had the skills and knowledge to support them safely. Risks were assessed and people were involved in the process. There were effective systems in place to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were administered safely and there were systems in place to ensure the environment was safe. For example, the provider employed 3 maintenance workers who oversaw all aspects of building safety including regular fire safety checks.
The staff told us they enjoyed working for the service and felt valued and supported. Their comments included, “My colleagues, they make me enjoy working here. It’s a very nice place to work”, “I think it’s a very good culture. We provide the best care we can for the residents. We work well as a team, and communication is very good” and “I never feel bored coming to work, and I don’t feel stressed. It’s a good place to work.”
People's experience of this service
During our visit, we spoke with people and relatives to seek their views of the service. We also carried out observations of staff interactions with people, and people’s dining experience.
We identified some staff tended to focus on the task rather than the person they were supporting. For example, we saw a staff member supporting a person to transfer to their wheelchair. This was carried out in silence. They then started to wheel the person out without telling them what they were doing. We also saw them instructing the person to keep their feet on the footplates, but they did not get down to the person’s eye level to explain what they meant. This caused the person to be confused. However, most staff we observed communicated in a kind and respectful manner with people. The provider took appropriate actions following our feedback.
People were consulted in all aspects of their daily lives, for example, their choice of meals and what they wanted to wear or which activities they wished to join. However, the opinion about the activities provided varied. One person told us, “I do dominoes, that’s about the only thing I like.” Relatives stated, “[Family member] doesn’t do much, it’s one of my bugbears, it’s very samey and doesn’t interest [them]. There’s a lot of repeats, I think that’s why [they don’t] go as it’s boring. [They] do like the music and the bingo” and “I see online sometimes what other homes do for activities and wish they did them. Play your cards right is boring. I don’t feel comfortable making suggestions. They do go on boat trips, to the seaside and garden centre.”
The activity plan was not visibly displayed and although this was distributed to each person, it was written in small font, which made it difficult for people to read. People told us they were unsure what was planned as they could not see it. Following our feedback, the provider took appropriate action to improve this and told us, “The new activities board has been extremely well received by both residents and staff. Residents have found it easier to understand what activities are taking place and have shown increased interest in participating. Staff have also commented positively on how the board supports communication and engagement.”
People told us the staff supported them in a kind and respectful manner. They told us their privacy and dignity were upheld and they felt comfortable receiving care from the staff. Their comments included, “They are extremely kind and respectful” and “They are very good and kind.” A relative added, “I think they do a wonderful job, they really are so caring.” We observed staff knocking on doors and waiting to be asked to come in before they entered. However, we also observed the staff using walkie-talkies to communicate. Whilst this may have been an efficient way to share information quickly, these were loud and enabled everyone to hear the conversation. This did not always reflect a dignified way to communicate. This was fed back to the provider.
People spoke positively about the staff and the care they received. Their comments included, “I’ve been here 8 years and to me it’s an outstanding place, I’m happy with the whole thing”, “It’s wonderful here, I can’t speak highly enough of it”, “They are constantly enquiring on how you are.” Relatives agreed and said, “The thing I always quote, is that [family member] has a sofa in [their] room that we use and it’s behind the door so the staff don’t know that we’re here when they come in so we see the genuine way that they are with [them], which is great” and “We knew as soon as we came here it was the one. As soon as you walk through you get that feeling and how friendly they are.”
People’s care plans were detailed and included all aspects of people’s lives, their preferences, what mattered to them and how they wanted to be supported. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and carry out any activities they enjoyed. For example, some people were able to go out independently and were supported to do so. One person had their own car and were able to use this to go out regularly. The registered manager told us, “The culture is encouraging people to walk if they can. When they come in they think they might need to give up their outside activities such as going to church. We encourage people to continue with these. We also have communion here once a month.”