- Care home
The Woodlands Care Home
Assessment report published 9 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 3 March to 8 April 2026. The assessment was completed due to concerns we identified at the last assessment. The Woodlands is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care to a maximum of 16 older people and those living with sensory impairments, across two floors. At the time of our assessment, the service supported 11 people. As part of the assessment we reviewed records, spoke with people who used the service, staff, leaders and relatives and reviewed records in relation to people’s support.
At the last assessment we found the provider was in breach of 4 legal regulations in relation to, safe care and treatment, good governance, staffing and fit and proper persons employed.
Improvements were not found at this assessment. We found the provider was in breach of 4 legal regulations in relation to, safe care and treatment, good governance, person-centred care and dignity and respect.
Although systems and documentation were in place, they were not effective. Records did not provide an accurate picture of care, and governance systems failed to identify risks, ensure standards were met or drive improvement.
People were exposed to harm because the provider did not ensure a safe, clean or well-maintained environment. Some decorative improvements were made subsequent to the inspection. Infection prevention and control was poor, environmental hazards were not addressed, and medicines were not always managed safely. Audits and checks had not identified these issues, despite the provider routinely recording positive findings.
Care records were inconsistent, sometimes contradictory and not regularly updated. They did not clearly reflect people’s current needs or risks, limiting staff’s ability to deliver safe and person-centred care. Systems for assessing needs, managing risks and responding to changes in health were not reliable.
Staffing systems were not robust. Staff were not always deployed effectively to meet people’s needs. This affected the consistency and safety of care, including the timeliness of responses to people’s needs.
Systems to safeguard people and learn from incidents were ineffective. Concerns were not always recognised, reported or acted on promptly, and repeated incidents had not led to sustained improvement. There were delays in safeguarding referrals and inconsistencies between provider records and external information.
Information was not consistently accurate or shared effectively, which meant care was not always coordinated or responsive to people’s changing needs. Partnership working with external agencies was not always timely or effective.
Although feedback from relatives and staff included positive comments about caring attitudes and relationships, this was not consistently supported by systems or practice. Care was not always delivered in a way that promoted dignity, independence, choice or person-centred outcomes.
Leadership and governance were not effective. Systems did not provide leaders with clear oversight of risk or performance, and there was limited evidence of learning, improvement or sustainable change. The provider had not demonstrated the ability to identify and address concerns or ensure safe, consistent, high-quality care.
This provider has remained in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a time frame within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People told us they felt safe and well supported by staff, who were described as “kind and caring.” The food was spoken about very positively. One person told us, “The food here is amazing.” Another person said, “I like it here.” Most relatives told us their loved ones were well looked after, treated with kindness and dignity, and that staff were friendly, supportive and quick to respond.
Relatives consistently described the staff team as caring, approachable and hardworking, and said there was good continuity, with familiar staff regularly present. Many relatives felt confident that their loved ones were safe and that any concerns they raised were listened to and acted on, although some said this did not always happen as quickly as they would have liked.
However, some areas for improvement were identified. Relatives said there were limited organised activities and not many opportunities for people to take part in meaningful engagement. Some described there being “not a great deal” for people to do and said activities were not always well planned or consistent.
Although some relatives told us communication was generally good, concerns were raised by other relatives about communication not always being clear or consistent, and some relatives felt they were not fully involved in care reviews. Some relatives reported delays in dealing with building or maintenance issues and felt that staff would benefit from more support from management.
While the registered manager was described as approachable and easy to contact, some relatives told us their presence within the home was not always consistent.
Some people were unable to communicate verbally with us. We carried out a short observational framework for inspectors (SOFI) to observe people’s experience of care. This showed some people were left unsupervised and without engagement for long periods of time.