Woodlands Care Home

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 service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

The last rating for this key question was 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 provider was in breach of a legal regulation relating to dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 ensure people were treated with dignity and respect. Four people were sharing 2 bedrooms in the home. The rooms were small and there were no facilities for people to get changed, wash, receive support with personal care, meet relatives, discuss their needs or sleep in private. The wardrobe for 1 person was stored in another person’s bedroom. They could not access their own belongings without going into another person’s bedroom. This meant that neither person was given privacy.

There were times when male staff gave females support with intimate personal care. Sometimes male staff were the only staff available on duty, particularly at night, to support people in a specific part of the building. The management team told us that people did not have the capacity to consent to this or not. Therefore, they should not have assumed consent for this and should have organised staffing to ensure that female staff were available to provide intimate personal care for female people living at the service.

During one of our visits, a volunteer sourced by the provider, spent some time sitting with their head resting on a table in the dining room. They appeared as if they were asleep. The staff members in the room told us the volunteer was on a break and did not request this person to relocate to an area away from people using the service. This was not appropriate for the volunteer to rest with their head on a dining room table where people were spending time.

Following our visits to the service, the local authority quality team also visited the service in the early hours of a morning to check on safe staffing levels. They shared feedback about their findings. A representative from the local authority told us about how they had witnessed a lack of privacy. They said, “The bedroom door at the end of the hallway was open and I could see staff providing care to 1 resident. Carers were evidently providing some form of personal care.” They also explained, “At approximately 5.45-5.50am, there were at least 5 or 6 residents already up and, in the lounge/dining area. One was asleep at the table, no staff present at this time.”

We discussed this the registered manager who agreed to undertake an unannounced nighttime visit to make sure people’s choices were respected. The reported back to us that no concerns were found during their own visit, and they had arranged further unannounced visits.

One relative told us that staff were very ‘tactile’ and often kissed and cuddled people. Whilst this relative told us they personally liked this, the provider should ensure that touch was appropriate at all times and people being cared for, not their relatives, must be able to consent to intimate signs of physical affection like this.

Whilst we found evidence that indicated people’s privacy and dignity were not always respected, most people using the service and relatives told us they found individual staff members kind and caring. Although 1 person told us that they found a member of staff unfriendly. Other comments from people included, “[Staff] are kind”, “Most staff are lovely”, “The way [staff] talk to people is nice” and “They are really kind and caring. They chat to [person].”

People were not always treated as individuals. Assessments and care plans did not always provide enough information about people’s preferences, choices and individual care needs. However, most staff knew people well and were able to explain about people’s needs and personalities.

During our first visit to the service, most people spent time in the lounge/dining area. Throughout the visit the television was left on even when other activities were taking place. One person requested the television was turned off. A staff member did this, but another staff member immediately turned this back on again. None of the staff consulted people about the television or choice of programmes.

The atmosphere in the communal room was lively and most people were engaged with each other or staff. During our first and subsequent visits to the service, we saw staff supporting people to take part in different activities. Staff encouraged people to participate in group activities but also respected their choices to spend time on their own. Staff were patient and respectful in their interactions. People using the service and relatives told us they felt they were treated as individuals. Their comments included, “I have a good rapport with the staff, and they listen to me”, “The staff talk to [me] when they approach and do not rush me. This makes a difference and means it is not confusing” and “The home is very accommodating with [person’s] religious needs.”

People’s independence, choice and control were limited because of relocation into different rooms and sharing of bedrooms. There were some restrictions for people’s movement around the home due to renovation work. For example, some people did not have access to their bedrooms during the day and relied on staff to help them move between buildings. We were not assured people’s independence was guaranteed as sometimes there were not enough staff to support people to make choices. However, staff supported people to be mobile when possible.

People told us they were able to make choices about how they spent their time and what they ate. One person told us, “[Staff] explain things so you can understand what they are on about.” The provider had sourced dining equipment to help promote independence. We observed staff respecting people’s choices about what to eat and drink during mealtimes. People’s families were able to be involved in their care and support. Staff explained they supported people to be involved in some meal preparation and cooking once a week.

The provider did not always respond to people’s immediate needs because they did not have enough staff to safely care for people and meet their needs. For example, some people required 2 members of staff to support them with their care. At night, there were not enough staff deployed to do this. The management team were not able to satisfactorily explain how people received the care they needed at night. We observed that some people were not given their lunch until 2pm during 1 of our visits. The staff were not able to explain why there was a delay in these people receiving their lunch.

However, we observed staff were attentive when people requested help and support. They were also observant and noticed when a person needed extra help. People using the service and their relatives told us staff were quick to attend if they called for help or had a problem. Relatives explained the staff had reacted appropriately following accidents and a decline in people’s health.

The provider’s systems did not always promote staff wellbeing. The renovations made the care home not conducive to a safe working and enabling environment. Night staff were expected to work from 3 different buildings. This meant they were not able to take breaks and did not have the support to manage in the event of an emergency. Despite this, staff explained they felt supported by the management team. They had opportunities to discuss their work with them through individual supervision meetings and appraisals. Staff told us they felt confident speaking to managers when they needed extra support. Staff were provided with a range of training to help them understand their roles and responsibilities.