Woodlands Court Care Home

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. This is the first assessment since the service was re-registered under a different provider name. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Only one person we spoke with could recall seeing their care plan. Relatives told us they knew their family member had a care plan, but most hadn’t read it. Relatives did tell us they had held conversations with staff about the care provided. One stated, “A care plan was put in place last September or October. There have been meetings about it. I often speak to the manager if I think [relative’s] situation has changed and she takes action.”

Each care plan had the same layout, with sections for care plans, risk assessments and correspondence. Some people had a care plan overview document within their file, which was a useful summary of their care needs and wishes, and how staff should meet these. These acted as a useful guide for staff, however, not everybody had one. The registered manager told us this was an oversight and took steps to address this during the assessment process.

From reading a number of care plans, we noted these contained a range of person centred information, including details of people’s likes, dislikes and what was important to them. However, this was not consistent across all, and we also noted some people’s care plans and risk assessments contained contradictory information.

We also identified more detail was required at times, to ensure staff had all the information they needed to support people effectively. For example, where people required the use of a wheelchair for mobilising long distances, there was no reference to whether the wheelchair had a lap belt, and if so for staff to ensure this was fastened. Similarly, it did not include if the wheelchair had footplates, or if the person could place their feet on these independently. The deputy manager, who oversaw care plans, took steps to address these shortfalls during the assessment process.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff worked well with healthcare and social care professionals to ensure people received joined up care, remained well and had their needs met. Staff understood people were individuals and had taken the time to get to know people. The provider understood that people had diverse and varied needs and made sure people’s care and support was planned and delivered to meet these.

A social worker provided some positive feedback about the staff and provision of care. They stated, “The staff's person-centred approach, professionalism, and dedication to the needs of the individuals in their care is truly admirable. I have no hesitation in endorsing the care home.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and recorded in their care plans and shared with staff to ensure these needs would be met. This included reference to any aids they required to support effective communication, such as glasses and hearing aids. Care plans also detailed whether people were able to understand simple or more complex questions, to ensure staff could be understood.

The registered manager told us information could be made available in different formats tailored to people’s specific needs. This would be determined during the assessment process. This included audio files, large, easy to read text and information in different languages.

From our observations of the environment, we noted some effort had been made to ensure posters and signage was accessible to people.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they did not consistently feedback what had changed as a result.

People and relatives told us they would speak to staff or management if had any concerns and/or wished to complain, though to date had not needed to. One person told us, “I would speak to any of the staff because they would all try to help me.”

The provider had a dedicated complaints file in place. We noted this did not contain a log to document complaints received, action taken and outcomes, though did include a lessons learned document. As such, it was difficult to identify if complaints received had been addressed in line with the provider’s policy and procedures. Following our first site visit, the registered manager implemented a complaints log, which we saw had been updated with all recent complaints.

People we spoke with could not recall attending any resident meetings. However, we saw minutes from monthly meetings on file, dating back to January 2025. The same agenda items were covered at each meeting, which included menus, activities, maintenance issues, professional visits, communication with relatives, raising concerns and management of the home. We did note the minutes did not include the actual date and time of the meeting, only the month it was held, nor who was in attendance. This may account for people’s feedback, as those spoke with may not have attended.

People’s views were also sought through questionnaires and satisfaction surveys. We reviewed the questionnaires and satisfaction surveys completed in 2025, and noted feedback was largely positive, though some people had put forward suggestions or detailed where things could have been better. However, we found no evidence the results of the surveys had been analysed, to identify any themes or trends, and nothing had been communicated or displayed within the home, to let people and relatives know what improvements or actions would be taken based on their feedback. The registered manager told us it was planned to utilise a ‘You said..we did..’ board, though this had not yet been introduced.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider considered people’s physical and medical needs when allocating them a room, with people who had greater mobility needs more likely to be placed on the ground floor. Aids and adaptations were in place throughout the home, including handrails on corridors and raised toilet seating, grab rails and bath hoists in specific bathrooms. The home had a lift to ensure people could access all floors freely and without difficulty.

The provider had yet to introduce the use of digital systems, as care plans and other documentation were paper based. As such, people were not yet at risk of digital exclusion, though the provider was mindful this would need to be considered, once they began transitioning to digital ways of working.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion which helped them better understand and reduce inequalities which may be faced by people living at the home. Specific training in dementia, learning disability and autism, also ensured staff had the skills and knowledge to support people effectively as and when required.

People were 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. The home worked closely with the local hospice in the provision of end of life care. The provider had appointed an end-of-life champion, to ensure good standards of care were maintained. The home had been nominated for an end-of-life and palliative care award, in recognition of the care they provided to people at this stage of their life.

We received positive feedback from the hospice about Woodlands Court and the care they provided. A hospice nurse stated, “Over the last few years, I have been into Woodlands Court. [Registered manager], [deputy manager] and staff have demonstrated a high level of professionalism. They engage well in meetings, knowing all their resident’s needs. They consistently share best practices in end-of-life care, making every effort to support residents in returning home from hospital in alignment with their wishes, to receive end of life care in a familiar environment. They provide support to family and friends and allow them time.

They are not afraid to seek advice when needed, demonstrating a commitment to continuous learning and delivering the best possible care. It is a privilege working alongside all the staff.”