Woodleigh Rest Home Limited

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 people’s safe care and treatment.

This service scored 50 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff were not always present in communal areas to be able to respond to people's needs promptly to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. As a result of this, people were at risk of experiencing care that did not consistently uphold their dignity or provide reassurance and comfort. However, people and relatives told us they felt listened to and respected and said the staff team were open and transparent. One person said, ‘I used to do a lot of worrying but now I have all the help I need when I want it.”

We observed staff knew people well and were kind and patient with them. We saw 1 staff member talking softly and stroking the hand of a person who was distressed and the calming effect this had on the individual. Another person pointed to a different staff member saying, “She's lovely isn't she, they all are. They look after me.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. People did not always have appropriate, person-centred, meaningful engagement or activities available to them to meet their needs.

People were able to access the garden area and enjoyed spending time outside. Some people spent time watching television; others were looking at magazines or talking to one another. The provider employed an activity organiser who people and relatives said was very good. However, this staff member also had other roles which impacted on activity provision. This meant planned activities did not always take place. One person, when asked about activities, said, “It would be good if we could do more in the home.”

We saw staff gave 1 person a jigsaw, however the pieces were from different jigsaws and didn’t match up to the picture on the box. We saw the person struggled for a while and then gave up.

Staff said 1 person got a lot of comfort from a local pastor who came in to visit them.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People felt they had some choice and control over their daily lives such as the clothes they wore and food and drinks. People said there were set times for meals and going to bed but there was some flexibility. One person felt mealtimes were too close together, saying, “Lunch is around 12.30pm and tea at 4pm. I am not always hungry at teatime as it takes us till 1.30pm to finish lunch.”

People said they could have visitors when they wanted and were supported to keep in touch with family and friends. Staff supported people to be as independent as possible. We saw people who required mobility aids had these to hand and staff supported and encouraged people with their mobility.

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.

We observed staff were not always attentive to people's immediate needs and did not always respond promptly. For example, on both site visit days, there were occasions when no staff were present in communal areas, and people were calling out for help because they did not have access to call bells. We had to alert staff to people’s needs.

There was a lack of oversight and monitoring by the provider and manager to ensure people’s needs were being responded to.

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.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how well they felt supported. Comments included, “Registered manager listens to us and is trying to get things done but there’s just not enough staff for the people we’ve got” and “There’s just not enough of us to assist people with everything.”

Staff survey analysis from May 2025 identified concerns about staffing and the lack of cleaning and laundry staff at the weekend. No action had been taken in response to these concerns.