Woodland House

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

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Inadequate.

This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfalls.

The service was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care and dignity.
 

This service scored 35 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

Staff did not always use respectful language or respond to people with empathy and compassion. We observed staff standing over people, using repeated prompts without meaningful interaction, some interactions failed to respect personal space and autonomy. We observed one person eating breakfast while staff repeatedly instructed them to "eat your food" over a period of approximately 30 minutes. Despite the person reaching towards staff seeking interaction, no meaningful conversation or engagement occurred. Staff used terms in one person’s care notes that were patronising and infantilizing.

People’s confidential information was not kept securely. Records containing personal information were in an unlocked cupboard in the lounge. We observed staff completing a handover between shifts, sharing information about people’s day in the lounge when one person was present.

Leaders had not recognised or addressed these cultural concerns.
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Although care plans contained substantial information about individual preferences, communication styles and sensory needs, these were not consistently reflected in daily support. Activities, interactions and routines often lacked personalisation. One person’s relative told us, “[Person’s name] goes swimming, but activities can be hit and miss depending on the staff. I get the feeling there are more group activities than individual ones.”
 

The provider did not promote people’s independence, so people did not know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People's choice and independence were limited by routines, delays and restrictions.

People were not routinely supported to develop skills, access community opportunities or pursue their interests. Requests to undertake activities were not always acted upon promptly and support frequently focused on routine domestic tasks. One person stated within their care records that they disliked being unable to access the community when they wanted. During the inspection we saw the person requested to go out and subsequently waited approximately six hours before being supported to go out for a drive lasting less than 1 hour.
 

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond appropriately to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Although staff often responded quickly to distress, they did not consistently follow the support plans or sensory strategies identified for individuals. As a result, some incidents appeared linked to staff actions or decisions that had not considered the person's communication or sensory needs.
 

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff had access to supervision and meetings. Some staff described positive support from leaders. One member of staff said, “Any concerns I can go to [senior staff], they are responsive, I have no concerns.” However, some concerns were raised with us regarding whistleblowing, speaking up and management responses to concerns. There was evidence that some staff felt unable to raise issues freely.