Woodlands Care Centre

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 did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 40 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. One relative told us, “They [staff] don’t respond to wet clothes after accidents [incontinence]. Staff just walk by.” This reflected concerns identified during the inspection. For example, we observed a person who was urinary incontinent, yet staff continued to attempt to seat them for breakfast, rather than responding promptly to support them and preserve their dignity. We also observed practices that did not always uphold people's privacy, with multiple staff opening bedroom doors during handovers while people were asleep. The new home manager acknowledged improvements were needed, stating the service needed to “go back to basics, what is dignity, what is good care.” Although action was being taken, these improvements had not yet been embedded across the service.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Although some positive interactions were observed, a person told us, “The staff are nice but sometimes they have not got time and just do what you want and go. They wave to me as they pass the door.” This indicated people did not always receive personalised support that reflected their individual needs. Improvements were needed to ensure people were fully involved in developing their care plans and had meaningful opportunities to contribute to decisions about their care.

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. Feedback we received was mixed. Some relatives described positive experiences and told us staff respected people's decisions and preferences. One relative told us, “They [staff] come in and explain what they are going to do. They treat [relative] respectfully…[relative] is not forced to do anything they don’t want to do.” Another family member told us, “[Relative] can choose. They go to bed and get up when they want. They would say if they didn’t want to do something.” However, this was not consistently reflected in people's experiences. One person told us, “There is no choice here. I was watching a TV programme, and the carer came to put me to bed at 9pm. I told her I don’t go to bed until 10 or 10:30pm. She kept coming back and said it says you go to bed at 9pm on your care records. I have not seen my care records.” We raised our findings with the provider, and they included this within their improvement plan.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. Feedback from people and relatives indicated concerns about the timeliness and responsiveness of care. One person told us, “They [staff] do not have time to listen, I get halfway through a sentence and they go off.” A relative said, “The level of staffing for complex care needs is lacking. Assistance was asked for and it took a long time for carers to respond. 25 minutes last weekend. [Relative] is non-verbal and makes calling noises. There’s no response.” Staff told us that where people were unable to use their call bells, they completed periodic checks on their wellbeing. However, we noted gaps in some of these records, reducing assurance that people's needs were consistently monitored and responded to. The call bell system did not have the facility for the provider to monitor response times. This meant they had limited oversight of how well staff responded to people’s immediate needs. The system was upgraded during our inspection.

The provider did not always care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Feedback from staff and relatives raised concerns about staff wellbeing, morale and support. Staff described feeling undervalued and under pressure. One staff member told us they were “really unhappy”, while another said, “They [management] think we are not working hard but we don't stop and don't always get our breaks. It's hard to meet people's needs when they need us.” This was reflected in feedback from a relative who told us, “Staff need to be valued, supported and appreciated more.” We identified gaps in supervision and oversight of staff wellbeing and performance, limiting opportunities for support, reflection and professional development. As a result, staff were not always equipped with the information, guidance and support needed to meet people's needs and deliver person-centred care. People were not consistently receiving personalised care from staff who themselves were well supported.