Woodlands 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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

At our last assessment, we found the provider was in breach of a legal regulation relating to good governance and had failed to comply with the conditions of their registration. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer breaching these legal regulations.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

At our last assessment, we found the provider’s vision and strategy for the service did not align with their legal responsibilities or keeping people safe. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The provider was meeting all legal requirements and had improved different aspects of the service. Staff felt supported and enjoyed working there. People using the service and their relatives told us they thought there was an open and inclusive culture. An external professional commented, “My experience of the service is positive and pleasant.”

At our last assessment, we found managers failed to ensure legal regulations were being followed. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The registered manager told us they had learnt from the last assessment and now had a better understanding of legal requirements.

People using the service, relatives and staff told us the management team were approachable. Their comments included, “[Registered manager] always says hello and is nice to me” and “Managers are excellent. The deputy manager is always here even at weekends.”

The provider had procedures for staff to speak up if they had concerns or anything was wrong. Staff told us they felt comfortable raising concerns with managers. They knew they could use the provider’s procedures to speak up anonymously if needed. Comments from staff included, “Managers have an open-door policy. They are approachable and listen” and “I would report concerns straight away to managers.”

People using the service and relatives explained they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident doing so.

The provider supported workforce equality, diversity and inclusion. The provider ensured staff were supported through recruitment processes and their policies and procedures.

Staff told us their individual needs were met. They were able to request time off when needed. A staff member commented, “We are all treated equally, respected and listened to.”

At our last assessment, we found the provider’s governance systems had not been effective. At this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements. The management team carried out audits of the service. When they identified improvements were needed, they created an action plan and addressed the issues. The provider asked people using the service, relatives and staff for their feedback about the service. They collated the responses and used this information to help plan further improvements.

At our last assessment, we found the provider had not worked in partnership and collaboration with others. At this assessment, we found the provider had made improvements. Staff worked closely with external professionals to help assess and meet people’s needs. The registered manager told us local community groups and charities provided some support and visited people living at the service.

Professionals told us they worked closely with staff and found them responsive.

At our last assessment, we found the provider’s systems for learning and innovation had not identified people were being exposed to serious risks and were also at risk of receiving inappropriate care. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The provider worked with external professionals, staff and relatives to identify where improvements were needed and to create a better care environment. They had accessed guidance from other professionals when needed. For example, developing systems to better manage medicines and to improve the fire safety of the building. The registered manager told us they had consulted with experts in dementia care environments when they had planned improvements to the building.