The Woodlands 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care planning and care delivery were not always personalised or adapted to reflect people’s preferences, current needs or changing circumstances. Records often relied on generic or template-based wording and did not clearly describe each person’s individual needs or how care should be tailored. There was limited evidence that people were consistently involved in developing or reviewing their care plans. Although activities were recorded, we did not observe structured activities taking place during the assessment. Some relatives said staff knew people well. One relative told us staff were“sensitive to [Name]’s sensory needs.” Staff described delivering person-centred care. One staff member said“I support residents with dignity and respect, help with personal care, and follow their choices and preferences. Another member of staff said,“Care is always centred around the individual.”

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Care records did not provide a single, clear overview of people’s needs. Documentation contained conflicting and inconsistent information across key areas, including mobility, personal care, nutrition, medicines and mental health. Information about significant events or changes in people’s needs was not consistently reflected in care planning. Reviews frequently recorded that there had been no changes, despite ongoing inconsistencies and clear evidence of changing needs. Although staff handovers took place, these relied on underlying records that were not accurate or reliable. Feedback from relatives reflected concerns about coordination of care. One relative told us,“There have been appointments missed. Resources seem insufficient.”

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People and those important to them were not consistently given clear, accurate or well-structured information about people’s care and support. Feedback from relatives showed mixed experiences. Some relatives felt well informed and said they had regular contact with staff, while others told us communication was inconsistent and not always proactive. Some relatives said they would have valued more regular and structured updates about their family member’s care. Although some relatives described positive relationships with staff and felt able to approach them for information, this was not consistently supported by clear communication processes or robust systems to ensure people and their families were kept appropriately informed. Relatives gave mixed feedback about communication. One relative told us,“They are in regular contact. I’m very, very pleased about what they do.”Another said,“They do whatever they can for [Name]. They have adapted their communication.”Other relatives highlighted gaps, with one saying,“I would like to be kept informed more.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Systems to gather, review and respond to feedback were not sufficiently robust. Documentation did not consistently show how people’s views, preferences or experiences were sought or used to inform care plans. Feedback from relatives was mixed. Some relatives felt listened to and involved. One relative said,“Definitely for me they listen to what I say,”and others gave examples of concerns being acted on, such as,“Yes the manager dealt with the concern positively,”and“Yes. I have mentioned concerns. They are trying to help get to the bottom of it.” Some relatives described limited involvement, particularly in formal processes. One relative told us,“I haven’t been [involved in reviews],”and another said,“I have been [involved] once but nothing in the last year.”Concerns were raised about the lack of structured engagement, with one relative stating,“They don’t have a structured feedback process.” Some relatives reported that concerns needed to be raised more than once before action was taken.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Variability in care delivery, resources and responsiveness meant that people’s access to support was not always consistent or based on their individual requirements. Staffing levels and deployment impacted people’s access to timely support. Staff were frequently undertaking multiple roles, which reduced their availability to provide care and support when needed. Although an activities programme was displayed, this was not consistently delivered in practice. Relatives told us there was not a wide range of activities available and structured opportunities were lacking. One relative said,“There isn’t a lot for them to do.” Another relative commented,“They don’t offer anything. Nothing structured.”Concerns were raised about unused resources, with one relative stating,“There is a bus that isn’t in use.”We found the providers minibus had not had an MOT in place since 2022. While some people chose not to engage, as reflected in the comment,“They do ask him but he’s happy in his room with the TV,”there was limited evidence of consistent opportunities being available to support engagement and wellbeing. The environment and condition of the home affected access by limiting safe use of communal areas and facilities. Staff described providing activities, with one stating,“We always engage residents in personalised activities.”

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. Variability in care delivery, staffing availability, care planning and the condition of the environment meant people’s day-to-day experiences were not always consistent. Some people experienced different levels of support depending on staff availability or staff interpretation of records, rather than receiving a consistent standard of care based on assessed need. Feedback from relatives was mixed. While some described positive experiences and improvements in health and wellbeing, others raised concerns about communication, activities, maintenance and responsiveness.

People were not always 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. Care planning and review processes did not consistently anticipate changes in people’s needs or ensure care remained responsive over time. Care plans were not reliably updated when people’s health, risks or circumstances changed. Where people had experienced repeated incidents or deterioration, there was limited evidence that care plans had been meaningfully reviewed or adapted to reduce future risk. There was also insufficient evidence of proactive planning to manage foreseeable deterioration or changing needs.