Woodland House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

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

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
 

This service scored 46 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had comprehensive care plans which described many aspects of their support needs. However, care was not always delivered as planned.

We found one person's care plan referred to them as the wrong gender on several occasions. This raised concerns that records had not been adequately reviewed and may not accurately reflect the person's wishes and needs.

Assessments and care planning documentation were in place, but were not always personalised, accurate or translated into practice.

 

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People were not consistently receiving support aligned with positive behaviour support principles or Right support, right care, right culture guidance.

The provider used recognised behavioural support frameworks. However, incidents continued to occur without meaningful review of their effectiveness. Records demonstrated limited opportunities for meaningful activity and evidence showed people were not consistently supported to access varied and nutritious diets.
 

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

People accessed healthcare services when required, and some specialist involvement had occurred historically. However, support from specialist teams had not always been maintained and there was limited evidence healthcare professionals were consulted proactively when concerns arose.
 

The provider did not support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People attended healthcare appointments and annual health checks. However, opportunities to promote healthier lifestyles were limited.

Dietary options were repetitive and heavily reliant on processed foods. Staff did not consistently recognise signs that medical advice may be required when people had experienced injuries. Opportunities for exercise and the promotion of people’s wellbeing were not consistently in place. We saw people were not supported to engage in physical activities and exercise in line with the guidance in their care plans.
 

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People's goals were not progressed. Opportunities for personal development were missed.

People were supported to identify their goals in monthly meetings with their keyworker; however, we saw the support they required to enable them to achieve their goals was not consistently provided. One person's progression plan stated they wished to learn how to use YouTube on an iPad. Staff told inspectors the individual rarely used their iPad, and inspectors found no evidence between March and May 2026 this goal had been actively supported.

Daily notes focused heavily on routine tasks rather than meaningful outcomes, aspirations or independence. Support was not consistently monitored to ensure positive outcomes were achieved.
 

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

MCA processes were in place but not always aligned with current requirements. Restrictions within the environment and care delivery were not consistently authorised or reviewed. Communication support was not always used to enable informed decision-making.