Woodleigh Manor Residential 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 Outstanding. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People consistently received highly personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs, preferences, histories and identities. Care was adapted in real time, based on what mattered to each person, rather than following routine or task led approaches.

Staff demonstrated an exceptional understanding of peoples lived experiences, routines, triggers and aspirations. This was evident in everyday practice, such as supporting people to eat in ways that suited them, adapting communication methods, and using meaningful activities to provide comfort, reassurance and purpose. Care delivery reflected deep knowledge of individuals rather than generic approaches. One staff member explained, “We know their stories and backgrounds. We understand them on a deeper level, so we can respond to what they actually need in the moment.”

People living with dementia were supported in ways that preserved identity and dignity. For example, staff enabled people to continue routines that reflected their previous lives, such as holding responsibilities within the home or maintaining long‑standing hobbies. These adaptations significantly reduced distress and increased emotional wellbeing.

A relative commented,“Theydon’tjust look after [name of person], they know who they are. They adapt things around them, not the other way round.”The registered manager reinforced this approach, saying,“Wedon’texpect people to fit into the home. We change what we do to fit the person.”This resulted in care that was genuinelyperson-centred,flexibleand responsive to individual need.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Care provision was well coordinated, integrated and consistently delivered by staff who knew people well. There was strong continuity of care, supported by low staff turnover and efforts to keep one-to-one support in-house wherever possible.

When people experienced changes in health or wellbeing, staff responded promptly and worked closely with external professionals, including GPs, district nurses, mental health teams and hospital services. Information shared with professionals was detailed, person specific and supported effective decision-making. A relative said, “If my wife needs healthcare input, the manager sorts it quickly and keeps me informed. Nothing feels fragmented.”

Staff ensured continuity during hospital admissions by accompanying people wherever possible, providing reassurance and ensuring that professionals understood the person beyond their diagnosis. The registered manager explained, “We go with them to hospital because we know them best. Familiar faces make all the difference when someone is frightened or confused.”

This integrated approach ensured people experienced seamless care transitions and continuity, even during complex or urgent situations.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives were provided with information in ways that were accessible, timely and tailored to their communication needs. Staff adapted how information was shared depending on people’s cognitive ability, language, sensory needs or emotional state.

People who struggled with verbal communication were supported to express needs through alternative methods, reducing distress and improving emotional wellbeing. People for whom English was not a first language, staff used visual prompts, picture cards, writing methods and individualised communication tools. These approaches were consistently applied and reviewed to ensure people could express choices and understand what was happening. A staff member said, “If words don’t work, we find another way, pictures, writing, drawing. Everyone deserves to be understood.”

Relatives told inspectors they felt well informed about their loved one’s care, changes in health and any incidents. Communication was described as open and honest, in line with duty of candour principles. One relative stated, “They explain things clearly, and I understand what’s going on. I feel involved and reassured.” This ensured people and those important to them had the right information, at the right time, in the right way.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives were actively listened to and involved in decisions about care and support. Feedback was welcomed formally and informally, and staff responded constructively to concerns or suggestions.

Relatives described being able to speak directly with senior staff and the registered manager, and felt confident their views would be taken seriously and acted upon. Changes to care plans and daily support were made in response to conversations with families and people themselves. One relative said, “If I mention something, they sort it. Nothing is too much trouble.”

Staff described an open culture where ideas, observations and concerns were shared and discussed regularly through handovers, flash meetings and informal conversations. The registered manager explained, “Staff and families know they can talk to me. Listening is how we get it right for people.” This culture ensured that people’s voices directly influenced how care was delivered.

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

The service ensured people had equitable access to care, support and opportunities regardless of background, diagnosis, communication ability or complexity of need. Admissions were carefully considered to ensure the service could meet people’s holistic needs.

People with high levels of need, including advanced dementia, mental health needs and physical dependency, were supported without discrimination. Reasonable adjustments were made to ensure equitable access to activities, healthcare services, visiting and community involvement. A staff member said, “No one is excluded here, we adapt things so everyone can be involved in their own way.” The registered manager added, “Equity isn’t about treating everyone the same. It’s about making sure everyone gets what they need.” This ensured fair access to care and opportunities for all people using the service.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People experienced consistently positive outcomes, regardless of complexity, background or communication ability. Staff worked proactively to remove barriers that might otherwise limit a person’s quality of life. For example, people from different cultural, religious and social backgrounds were supported to maintain their identity and connections. A relative shared, “[Name of person] has a dementia and struggled elsewhere. Here, they are calmer, happier and have put weight on. The difference is incredible.”

Staff reflected on outcomes to ensure people’s quality of life was significantly improved. The registered manager said, “If something isn’t improving someone’s life, we change it. Outcomes matter more than routines.” This approach ensured people experienced equitable outcomes and meaningful improvements to quality of life.

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.

The service demonstrated strong person focused planning for people’s future needs. Care planning remained dynamic, regularly reviewed and adjusted in response to changes in health, capacity or personal wishes.

End‑of‑life planning was approached with compassion and respect. Where people and families were ready to discuss future wishes, staff supported meaningful conversations and documented preferences clearly. Where people or families were not ready, this was respected and revisited later.

A relative said, “They know [name of person] wishes and respect them. We’ve talked about what matters, and I trust them completely.” The registered manager explained, “Planning isn’t about ticking boxes. It's about being there when people are ready and supporting them at their pace.” This ensured future planning supported people to live well at the end of their lives.