Woodlands Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Since our last inspection in October 2025, the provider now had systems in place which ensured oversight to reduce risk and ensure people received care focused on achieving positive outcomes. Care records were reviewed regularly to ensure the care met people’s needs as their circumstances changed. Records were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected the person’s needs and preferences. Any changes in people’s needs were shared with other agencies and relevant healthcare professionals when required.

Feedback we received from relatives was positive and comments included, “[Staff] noticed a change in [family members] blood pressure and contacted the GP who changed the medication”, and “[Family member] has been referred to the Mental Health Team regarding an incident. I was kept informed and a solution was found, which seems to be working so far.”

The provider did not always demonstrate that people were fully involved in decisions about their care and treatment or that all consent-related decisions were supported by a clear Mental Capacity Act (MCA) decision-making process.

The service had made improvements and staff completed Mental Capacity Assessments and Best Interest Decisions for some aspects of people's care. However, records showed the provider relied on consent forms for some decisions without consistently evidencing the MCA process.

For example, records did not demonstrate how the service had considered whether the use of photographs in public domains was in the person's best interests. There was no clear evidence that the person's wishes, feelings, dignity, privacy or the impact of sharing their image publicly had been considered. The provider could not demonstrate how publishing photographs would benefit the individual rather than the service.

Staff assessed risks and reviewed the support people needed during the night. However, records did not always clearly explain how decisions had been reached or why changes had been made. For example, one person's night-time welfare checks were reduced from two-hourly to four-hourly despite ongoing risks associated with dementia, falls and the use of safety equipment. Records did not clearly explain the rationale for this change.

Overall, people received day-to-day care in line with their expressed wishes and in their best interest. However, improvements were needed to ensure decision-making processes were consistently recorded, clearly evidenced and supported by appropriate oversight in line with the Mental Capacity Act code of practice.