Burleys Wood

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 remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People received care and support from staff who knew them well. Staff were skilled in talking to people and established a rapport. The relationships between staff and people receiving support demonstrated dignity and respect. Staff spoke fondly about the people they supported.

Throughout our visit staff interacted with people in a warm and friendly manner. It was evident that people were comfortable in the presence of staff. People described the care staff as, “Lovely people.” One person told us, “They treat me very well, I have no complaints, they are all very lovely and caring."

Feedback from visiting healthcare professionals included, ‘Interactions between staff and residents are warm, respectful, and person centred.’

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We saw people were free to spend time doing the things they enjoyed, and staff encouraged them to be involved in social activities that were available. People told us, “We have activities twice a day which I like to get involved with.” Another person told us, “I enjoy the activities. I take part most days. There’s not enough variety. I would love more things to do… I’m bored.”

Staff focused their attention on providing support to people in a way in which was personalised to them. Staff knew what people could do for themselves and areas where support was needed. People told us that they received the care they wanted and were happy with the care received. They told us they were, “happy,” and said, “I am treated very well by the carers, they are all lovely people… If I need anything then the carers help me.”

Visitors were able to visit without restrictions. A relative told us, “I visit daily… If I need anything I speak to the nurse. I have no concerns, other than the food.”

Feedback from visiting healthcare professionals included, ‘Residents appear well cared for and emotionally supported. I have observed staff involving residents in decisions about their daily routines, such as choosing clothing, activities, or preferred seating. Personal care is delivered discreetly, with dignity and privacy maintained throughout.’

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Staff knew people well and were knowledgeable about how to promote people’s choice and independence. Feedback from people and their relatives about choice and control was positive. Throughout our time at Burleys Wood, we saw people were able to choose where they went and how they spent their time. They told us, “I can make choices about what I want to eat and drink and [how I] dress.”

The provider promoted people’s dignity and independence. There was guidance in people’s care plans to enable staff to support in a least restrictive way and promote independence, choice and control as much as possible. Feedback from visiting healthcare professionals included, ‘I have observed staff involving residents in decisions about their daily routines, such as choosing clothing, activities, or preferred seating. Personal care is delivered discreetly, with dignity and privacy maintained throughout.’

The provider listened to and understood 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.

Staff used a person-centred approach. They were knowledgeable about potential risks to people and gave examples of possible triggers and action they took to support people. Staff expressed concerns that the staffing levels prevented them from meeting people’s needs. They said, ‘The home frequently operates with unsafe staffing levels. Shifts (especially nights) often run below the minimum required to meet residents’ needs, resulting in delayed care, missed tasks, and increased risk of incidents. Despite being aware of these shortages, the local management team has not taken effective action to resolve them.’

Throughout our visit we saw staff were attentive and responsive to people’s needs and requests. During our visit we saw that call bells were answered promptly by staff who were caring and empathic. However, a staff member told us, ‘During night shifts, there are occasions where several residents are walking at the same time, with incidents [of challenging behaviour] occurring simultaneously, while call bells are ringing. In addition, some residents have very poor mobility, which places them at increased risk of falls… this creates significant challenges in supervision, timely response, and maintaining safety.’

People did not raise any concerns about their care.

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.

Over a third of the 30 staff who provided feedback raised concerns.

They told us that Shaw Healthcare was a good company to work for. They said, ‘[Shaw Healthcare] provides policies, resources, and structures that should support safe and high quality care.’ The raised concerns regarding, ‘the conduct, decisions, and leadership style of the care home manager and their immediate team.’ Staff spoke about discrimination, particularly in relation to their visa sponsorship status.’Despite the feedback from staff, we found the provider had taken steps to promote wellbeing. This included a celebration of diversity at Burleys Wood in August 2025 and staff had received training in equality and diversity.

Staff told us they did not feel appreciated they said, ‘I think it would be lovely [place to work] if they [Management team] would be more appreciative [of] the staff.’ They described their colleagues as being, ‘miserable and tired’ and raised concerns about the manner in which they were spoken to by some senior staff. A staff member told us, ‘We are not supported by some leaders, [this leads to us] working in a tense environment.’ They also said they were, ‘Questioned by a team leader as to why we are not answering bells fast enough.’

Staff told us they were concerned regarding the staffing levels at the home. They had raised concerns regarding staffing with the registered manager and had not been listened to. Feedback included, ‘Although the organisation encourages openness, the local manager and their team routinely dismiss staff concerns. Staff who raise issues about safety, staffing, or resident needs are ignored or discouraged.’

Following the assessment, we discussed the feedback received from staff with the provider. The provider gave examples of actions Shaw Healthcare had taken in response to our feedback. This included mechanisms they had put in place to assist staff to speak up and share any concerns. They gave assurances they would take action regarding the feedback from staff.