The Woodlands Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people were not always well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect. The provider was in breach of the legal regulation in relation to treating people with dignity and respect.

This service scored 50 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We identified practices and environments that did not consistently uphold people’s dignity. People were not always supported in line with their care plans to maintain personal dignity. Care plans identified that staff should support individuals with personal care, continence needs and maintaining a clean and safe living environment, however, this support was not consistently provided in practice. People were at risk of living in unclean conditions, which impacted on their dignity and wellbeing. We observed mixed interactions between staff and people. Some interactions were kind and supportive. For example, one staff member clearly explained to a person what a visiting health professional would be doing and provided reassurance throughout. Another staff member comforted a person who had become distressed and engaged them in conversation about their interests. However, we also observed interactions that did not uphold dignity. One person became distressed when a staff member wiped their face without warning, startling them. On another occasion, a staff member instructed a person to move to the dining room for dinner without offering choice. Feedback from relatives was positive overall. Comments included, “[Name] is doing a lot better, they have really looked after them. They have clearly been well cared for,”“We are very pleased. They saved [Name]s life,” and “Both I and [Name] are very happy. [Name] is well cared for. Staff are friendly, helpful and sensitive.”A person using the service told us,“It is nice here and the food is good.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. Despite the presence of personalised activity records, they did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Care records were not sufficiently personalised. Documentation often relied on generic, template-based wording and did not clearly describe people’s individual needs or provide practical guidance for staff. Important information about people’s needs was not consistently brought together into one clear care plan. Information about communication and sensory needs, such as visual impairment, hearing loss and confusion, was recorded in different parts of the records but was not clearly linked or summarised. Peoples care plans contained vague instructions which did not provide meaningful, person-centred guidance. There were some examples of staff recognising and supporting individual interests. For example, one person was being supported to learn two languages. However, care was not consistently tailored to individual preferences. One person’s care plan stated they enjoyed listening to the radio, but we did not observe this being provided. Another person was observed sitting alone throughout the day with no meaningful engagement or stimulation, despite records indicating preferences for interaction and activity. Relatives gave some positive feedback about personalised care. Comments included, “Yes they have got to know [Name]”,“[Name] gets their individual meals on request, "and “They have adjusted food to [Name]’s preference. "However, these examples were not consistently reflected in care records or supported by robust systems to ensure people’s individual needs and preferences were reliably understood and met.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Peoples care records did not always clearly set out what people could do independently and where support was required. Where people were able to do aspects of their care independently, there was not always clear guidance on how staff should support this safely. Care planning did not consistently reflect people’s preferences or choices in a practical way. There was limited evidence that people were actively involved in decisions about their care where needs had changed or risks had increased. We saw people’s independence was promoted in some instances. One person who was visually impaired chose to eat independently, and staff respected this choice. However, some people who were struggling to eat independently did not have appropriate aids, such as plate guards, and there was limited evidence of assessment or adaptation to support safe independence. Choice was not consistently promoted. For example, one person was told they would be taking part in an activity rather than being asked, while another person was offered a choice. Relatives gave positive feedback about how choice was respected. Comments included, “They are encouraging but respecting their choice,”and“[Name] doesn’t want to do much these days, and that’s their choice.”

People’s immediate care needs were not always recognised or responded to in a timely way. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Staffing pressures reduced staff availability to monitor people and provide support when it was needed, which affected response times. Care records did not consistently provide clear guidance about when people required support. We observed one person remained in their room for 3 hours with only one brief interaction from staff. Another person who was at risk of falls was observed attempting to stand using a walking frame without staff support, and there was no immediate response from staff. We observed delays in supporting people with meals. One person was left with their meal for a period without encouragement or assistance. When support was provided, this was task-focused, with limited verbal interaction or explanation. Some relatives told us that although staff were caring, concerns had to be raised more than once before action was taken.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. There was limited evidence of structured supervision, appraisal or ongoing development. This meant staff did not consistently receive formal support, feedback or opportunities to develop their skills and practice. Some staff told us that additional support and resources would help them to carry out their roles more effectively. Overall staff described the team as supportive, morale as generally positive, and the manager as approachable. They told us they worked well together and felt able to raise concerns. For example, staff said,“We always work as a team and help each other,”and“I am very happy working here. I feel supported by the team.”Staff spoke positively about their development, with comments such as,“I am still learning and improving every day,”“Regular supervisions help me to improve my knowledge and skills,”and“I feel confident in my role and supported.” However, these positive experiences were not supported by robust systems or consistent management processes.