Woodlands Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. 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 the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider’s policies and procedures underpinned their vision and values for the service. Staff understood their responsibility to provide care to people, in line with these values. The registered manager used spot checks, supervision and meetings to make sure staff understood their responsibilities, and provided good quality, person-centred care which met needs and kept people safe.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

People and relatives spoke positively about management and how they ran the home. Comments included, “I know the manager, I see her around; she is easy to talk to”, “Everything appears to run smoothly and they meet [relative’s] needs” and “We know the manager, she is friendly and helpful; she keeps us updated about [relative’s] condition.”

Staff also told us the home was well-run and they felt supported in their roles. The only criticisms raised related to not seeing consequences for staff who were regularly off sick. We discussed this with the registered manager, who explained actions had been taken, but these could not be communicated to staff for reasons of confidentiality.

We found the registered manager to be open, honest and motivated to provide the best service they could. They responded promptly to feedback during the assessment process in an effort to drive improvement. We received numerous commendations from visiting professionals about both the management team and staff, relating to how well the home was run and the standard of care provided.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. People, relatives and staff all told us they found management to be approachable and would be happy to raise any concerns directly with them.

The provider had up to date policies and procedures in place, which provided guidance for staff on how to speak up and raise any concerns. Staff told us they were aware of these policies and the process to follow. Comments included, “They do [have a whistleblowing policy], we have access to this in the file. I know what do” and “Yes, I know about the policy, I could speak to [registered manager] or go higher.”

The provider had installed a comments and suggestions box within the home, where people, relatives or staff could post feedback or raise concerns anonymously, should they not wish to speak with the manager or the provider directly.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were valued and treated equally and fairly. Staff received the same opportunities to learn and progress in their roles. Some staff we spoke with had progressed from a carer role into more senior positions.

Staff meetings were held; these included specific meetings for different departments within the home. This ensured staff were kept up to date with information and in the running of the home. We did note there had been no set schedule for meetings, with these being held on a more ad-hoc basis. However, a new meeting schedule had been put in place by the registered manager to address this.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

An audit file was in place which contained a checklist detailing what audits should be done, albeit the frequency of completion was not clear. We looked at the audit checklist for 2024 and noted some had been completed monthly, such as audits of accidents and incidents, infection control, kitchen, laundry first aid, others quarterly, for example health safety. We also looked at the 2025 audit checklist and noted audits had been signed off as completed in March, April and May, but the rest of the checklist was blank.

From looking through records, we were able to identify the majority of audits had been completed so far in 2025. Whilst some had been effective in driving improvements, others had not always identified shortfalls in practice. For example, care plans audits had not identified some of the contradictory information or lack of detail we noted. Key staff were tasked with ensuring record keeping and monitoring charts had been completed fully and correctly. However, some people’s charts we reviewed contained gaps or had not been completed in as much detail as necessary. The registered manager told us they would be changing the way these checks were done, to ensure such issues were picked up more effectively moving forwards.

Some audits had been effective in identifying issues. For example, meal time audits, which had been done every month up to May 2025, had identified some shortfalls in practice, with actions generated to address these. However, more work was needed to ensure actions were addressed timely, as we noted similar issues on consecutive audits, for example, plated meals not being used to help people choose what they wanted to eat.

The registered manager completed daily walk rounds. During these they checked a range of areas including the environment, staff practice, medication management, dining experience and record keeping.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The provider and registered manager worked closely with a range or professionals and other stakeholders, to ensure people received safe, effective care which met their needs. As mentioned elsewhere in the report, we received a number of positive testimonials from various professionals, all of whom spoke positively of their experiences working alongside the home and its staff. Feedback included, “I have a great deal of trust in the team and appreciate the professionalism and compassion they demonstrate on a daily basis” and “I would like to commend the manager for their person-centred approach and their ability to make my clients feel welcomed and comfortable.”

The provider had arranged a care home open day for July 2025, and had invited the local authority and neighbouring care homes, with the aim of developing shared learning and peer support.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had an overarching action improvement plan in place, however, it was not clear how this linked in with the auditing and governance system. Actions noted on the audit documents we reviewed had not consistently been transferred to this document, to help ensure effective oversight.

It was not clear why a number of the areas for improvement were included on the plan, as this information was not documented. For example, the plan was separated into topic areas, such as falls safety, infection control and health and safety. Under the health and safety section, it had been documented ‘quarterly health and safety audit completed by [staff initials], audit completed and no concerns’. These was no other information to indicate if there had been issues previously, or why this area was included on the improvement plan.

During conversations with the registered manager, they told us about a number of changes to practice they had made or were planned, after identifying gaps or shortfalls. None of these had been captured on the improvement plan, which they acknowledged.

We did see some positive examples of changes and improvements made, which included work done with healthcare professionals. In early 2025, the registered manager had identified an increase in skin integrity concerns. In partnership with the district nursing team, they reviewed each person at risk of skin breakdown. Bespoke training was rolled out to staff, and drop in sessions set up, to allow for good practice to be shared. Eight weeks after commencing this work, analysis showed a reduction in skin integrity concerns, with no new referrals having been made.

Feedback from the district nurse involved in this work confirmed this. They stated, “Between the quarterly period December 2024 to March 2025, 17% of the residents within the home had been referred to district nurses for treatment for pressure ulcers. 50% of these referrals were for Category 3 and above. In the quarter period from March 2025 to June 2025 we have not received a single referral in regard to the formation of pressure ulcers for patients within the home, and there has been an increase in equipment provision and staff engagement with recognising early warning signs.”