- Care home
Woodlands Care Centre
We served warning notices on RCH Care Homes Limited on 17 September 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance at Woodlands Care Centre.
Assessment report published 19 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 21 July 2026 to 10 September 2026. The service is a nursing home providing support to older people, some of whom were living with dementia and/or physical disabilities. We carried out this inspection in response to concerns we had received about the service and because it had not been inspected for some time. We found 4 breaches of regulation relating to safe care and treatment, safe staffing, dignity and respect and good governance.
People were not always protected from the risks of unsafe care. Care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate, complete or reflective of people’s current needs, which meant risks were not consistently identified, assessed or managed. Environmental hazards, food hygiene concerns and unresolved infection prevention and control issues further increased risks to people’s safety and wellbeing.
People, relatives and staff consistently raised concerns about staffing levels, reporting delays in care and reduced opportunities for meaningful engagement and person-centred support. Staffing levels did not always reflect the complexity of people’s needs, and a reliance on agency staff affected continuity and consistency of care. Staff also reported limited support, supervision and development opportunities, contributing to low morale and concerns about their ability to meet people’s needs effectively.
People had access to healthcare professionals when required, and medicines were managed safely. However, staff did not always have sufficient guidance to support people with long-term health conditions, monitor changes in their wellbeing or respond appropriately to identified risks. As a result, care was not always planned or delivered in line with people’s assessed needs.
Peopledid not always receive care that was kind, compassionate and person-centred. Some people and relatives raised concerns about staff responsiveness, and we observed occasions where people’s privacy and dignity were not fully respected. People were not always involved in decisions about their care and support.
Leadership, culture and oversight required significant improvement. People, relatives and staff described a culture where they did not always feel listened to, valued or supported. Governance systems had failed to identify and address several longstanding concerns, and learning from incidents, complaints and feedback was not consistently embedded into practice. During the inspection, the provider updated its Service Improvement Plan, and the new home manager demonstrated insight into the challenges facing the service and a commitment to improvement. However, many planned actions remained at an early stage, and sustained improvement was needed to ensure people consistently received safe, effective, high-quality care.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
People's experience of this service
Feedback from people and their relatives was mixed. While many described staff as kind, caring and respectful, concerns were raised about staffing pressures, continuity of care and delays in support. One relative told us, “A lot of the carers are compassionate, kind and have humour. But they are stretched and ask us to tell management that they are stretched.” People said they sometimes had to wait for support and felt the high use of new and agency staff meant staff did not always know them or their needs well. One relative told us, “There is a lack of continuity, as there is new staff. Some of the staff are a bit vague about what [relative] needs.” People did not always feel their views were listened to or acted upon, and feedback about involvement in care planning and reviews was inconsistent. People and relatives described instability within the service, which they felt had negatively affected their experience of care. They referred to frequent management changes and a lack of consistency in the quality of support provided. One relative commented, “Things have got worse over the year.” Despite these concerns, some people and relatives described positive experiences of care and support. People generally told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and sought their consent before providing care. One person said, “There is great support here, a lot of love and kindness.” Several relatives told us they were hopeful that recent leadership changes would help bring about sustained improvements within the service.