Woodlands Care Centre

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 54 (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 relevant changes in their needs. People did not always receive care that reflected their individual preferences and wishes. One relative told us, “The carers are task orientated with regimented routines and are not flexible.” This was consistent with our observations and other feedback, which indicated staff were often focused on completing tasks rather than delivering personalised care. One person told us, “I have a shower in the morning, but they don’t dry me, I have to ask. I bought deodorant and they don’t use it unless I ask. If I ask they will help me brush my teeth.”

Care plans were not consistently person-centred and varied in quality. We found examples of generic wording and standardised text that did not adequately reflect people's individual preferences, needs and risks. Feedback regarding involvement in care reviews was mixed, and the management team acknowledged care plans had not historically been reviewed often enough or fully captured people's needs. Staff told us they did not always have time to get to know people or review care records and often relied on information shared by nursing staff. We raised our findings with the provider, and they included this within their improvement plan.

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. People, relatives and staff consistently raised concerns about the lack of continuity in care. A relative told us, “There is no consistency as there are a lot of new staff faces.” Another person said, “The staff are unreliable, you never know who is coming in, there are so many changes, there is a small core of regular staff.” The provider's reliance on agency staff also affected the consistency of care people received. One relative told us, “The high number of agency staff put experienced staff under pressure.” Staff also described challenges in maintaining continuity, with one staff member telling us, “It is hard with agency staff... They don’t know people like the regular staff.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information used to support people's care was not always accurate or reliable. The provider had accessible information available, including easy-read information and details of advocacy services. However, care records were not always accurate or up to date. This reduced assurance that information used to plan, deliver and review people's care consistently reflected their needs and the care they had received.

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. Care records did not consistently demonstrate that people’s needs, wishes and preferences had been discussed or accurately reflected in the care provided. Relatives also raised ongoing concerns about the leadership, management oversight, staff support and the overall quality of the service. Despite a complaints process being in place, people did not always feel concerns were listened to, acted upon or resolved satisfactorily. This meant the provider could not demonstrate it was consistently listening to and acting on feedback to improve people's experiences. However, there was some evidence of recent improvement. One relative told us, “The new manager was very good and sorted it [the concern] out.” People said nurses on the unit listened to them, and the new home manager described a commitment to engaging with people and their relatives and “showing we are serious about addressing their concerns.” However, it was too soon to assess the impact of these recent changes.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People had access to healthcare professionals and specialist services when required. The provider worked with external agencies and healthcare professionals to support people's care and treatment needs.

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. People told us that they did not feel listened to when they tried to give feedback. This meant there were missed opportunities for the provider to understand the experiences of groups most likely to experience inequality. Records reviewed showed that people's specific care needs, including nutrition and hydration requirements, were not always met. As a result, people did not consistently achieve their desired health outcomes.

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. End of life care planning was variable in quality. Staff reported limited training in this area and advised they relied heavily on nursing staff for advice and guidance. There was an increased risk that people’s wishes and preferences would not be met when their health needs changed.