Woodhall Support Services Ltd

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.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained as requires improvement.

This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 57 (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.

Discussions with the registered manager, along with a review of relevant records, indicated staff meetings and formal supervision sessions were infrequent throughout 2025. Despite this, evidence demonstrated the registered manager maintained regular informal engagement with individual staff members. These informal interactions provided staff with opportunities to raise concerns, seek guidance, and access support as required.

The registered manager acknowledged several areas within the service required further review and development to promote and maintain quality standards. One‑to‑one supervision was identified as a key area needing improvement to ensure staff received consistent structured support.

There was also a strong emphasis on staff training and professional development. During spot checks, the registered manager assessed whether staff were applying the skills and knowledge gained through training in their day‑to‑day practice.

Both the registered manager and the staff compliance manager demonstrated a good understanding of the care and support needs of people using the service, including cultural considerations. They were also proactive in providing support to relatives when required.

The staff team was diverse in both culture and professional skill sets. One staff member reported the management team was supportive, recognised staff as individuals, and provided tailored assistance when needed. This approach helped staff achieve their full potential in delivering person‑centred care.

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

The service was managed by a registered manager and a staff compliance manager who provided oversight of day‑to‑day practice. The staff compliance manager took an active role in supporting staff, including undertaking joint care calls to assess competence and provide guidance. People who used the service were consistently positive about both the care staff and the management team. Both managers were experienced and demonstrated a clear understanding of people’s assessed needs. Where necessary they were able to guide and support staff in promoting standards and ensure person-centred care was delivered.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up, and their voice would be heard.

People using the service told us the management team were approachable and responsive. They consistently reported feeling confident to raise any concerns, knowing they would be listened to and that appropriate action would be taken. One person who used the service told us, “The managers are very approachable, and they sort things out.” Another person commented, “They listen and tell us what they are going to do.” This demonstrated a transparent and open culture where people’s views were actively sought and valued.

Staff feedback reflected the same positive culture. One staff member told us they would feel comfortable raising concerns with the management team and were confident these would be addressed promptly. Conversations with the registered manager confirmed they maintained regular contact with staff, enabling open communication and providing frequent opportunities for staff to discuss any issues or seek advice.

The management team carried out routine spot checks and welfare calls, which supported ongoing monitoring of service quality and provided people with regular opportunities to express their views.

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.

The service benefited from a staff team diverse in culture, experience, and skills. This diversity contributed positively to the quality-of-service delivery and supported a workforce capable of meeting people’s varied needs.

Where staff disclosed health conditions, the registered manager took proactive steps to support their wellbeing. This included adapting work patterns to ensure staff could continue to carry out their roles safely and comfortably. Such adjustments reflected a leadership approach that valued staff welfare and promoted an inclusive working environment.

One staff member we spoke with, told us they were treated fairly and had access to appropriate training and development opportunities. This encouraged professional growth and helped ensure the workforce remained competent and confident in their role, and able to provide high‑quality care.

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.

We found the provider’s governance systems were not fully effective in ensuring appropriate oversight of the service. There were no audit systems in place to monitor whether incidents were clearly recorded or to demonstrate when external agencies had been involved. For example, records showed a medication error had occurred. However, there was insufficient information about the nature of the error or whether medical advice had been sought. This lack of detail limited the provider’s ability to evaluate risks or implement learning to prevent recurrence.

There were no established audit processes for reviewing and monitoring incidents and accidents. This limited the provider’s ability to identify trends, analyse contributing factors, or implement preventative measures.

There were no audits to monitor the routine servicing of lifting equipment located in people’s homes. This presented a risk equipment may not be adequately maintained. When we raised this with the registered manager, they took prompt action to rectify the issue.

The registered manager lacked sufficient understanding of their responsibilities regarding the reporting of potential safeguarding concerns to the local authority and to the Care Quality Commission. This created a risk people may not be adequately protected from avoidable harm. The gaps in regulatory knowledge also reflected a lack of understanding regarding the notification requirements for events the service is legally obliged to report.

The absence of health‑specific care plans posed a risk to the quality and safety of care delivery. The registered manager’s existing audit processes had not identified these omissions, further demonstrating shortfalls in governance and oversight.

Recruitment procedures required strengthening to ensure all safety checks were completed before staff commenced employment.

At the time of our assessment, the service was supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people. Staff training records and discussions with the registered manager showed staff had received appropriate training to meet the needs of this service user group. However, the service was not registered to provide a regulated activity for this service user group. The registered manager told us they would take immediate steps to submit the required registration application.

The registered manager demonstrated limited understanding of the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture, and further development was required to apply these effectively.

People told us they were satisfied with the care they received and valued the routine spot checks and welfare calls from managers, which provided reassurance and maintained oversight of service quality.

Overall, improvements were needed to ensure the service was consistently well‑led, with strengthened governance, clearer regulatory understanding, and more robust auditing systems to support safe, compliant care.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The registered manager was not fully aware of their responsibility to report information about events and incidents to relevant external agencies, including potential safeguarding concerns. This lack of understanding could hinder the service’s ability to learn from incidents, respond effectively to risks, and ensure continuous improvement.

Despite these shortfalls, we saw evidence of positive joint working with external professionals, including district nurses and social workers. This collaboration supported people’s care and helped ensure their needs were addressed in a coordinated way.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation or improvement across the organisation or wider system. Opportunities to promote equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people were not consistently explored, and the service did not routinely contribute to safe, effective practice or sector‑wide learning.

We found improvements were required in the monitoring of trends and patterns to support consistent service development. Although, 1 staff member described a culture in which they felt confident to speak up and make suggestions for improvement, there were limited formal mechanisms, such as regular supervision or structured staff forums, to gather staff feedback about the running of the service in a systematic way.

People and their relatives were involved in reviews, helping ensure the service was tailored to their individual needs.

During this assessment, the registered manager acknowledged the shortfalls we identified and demonstrated a positive attitude towards learning and improvement. Since our site visit, they have provided evidence of actions taken to strengthen compliance and enhance the quality of care delivered.