The Woodlands Care Home

“Improvements were not found at this assessment. We found the provider was in breach of 4 legal regulations in relation to, safe care and treatment, good governance, person-centred care and dignity and respect.”

“Although systems and documentation were in place, they were not effective. Records did not provide an accurate picture of care, and governance systems failed to identify risks, ensure standards were met or drive improvement.”

“People were exposed to harm because the provider did not ensure a safe, clean or well-maintained environment. Some decorative improvements were made subsequent to the inspection. Infection prevention and control was poor, environmental hazards were not addressed, and medicines were not always managed safely. Audits and checks had not identified these issues, despite the provider routinely recording positive findings.”

“Care records were inconsistent, sometimes contradictory and not regularly updated. They did not clearly reflect people’s current needs or risks, limiting staff’s ability to deliver safe and person-centred care. Systems for assessing needs, managing risks and responding to changes in health were not reliable.”

“Staffing systems were not robust. Staff were not always deployed effectively to meet people’s needs. This affected the consistency and safety of care, including the timeliness of responses to people’s needs.”

“Systems to safeguard people and learn from incidents were ineffective. Concerns were not always recognised, reported or acted on promptly, and repeated incidents had not led to sustained improvement. There were delays in safeguarding referrals and inconsistencies between provider records and external information.”

“Information was not consistently accurate or shared effectively, which meant care was not always coordinated or responsive to people’s changing needs. Partnership working with external agencies was not always timely or effective.”

“Although feedback from relatives and staff included positive comments about caring attitudes and relationships, this was not consistently supported by systems or practice. Care was not always delivered in a way that promoted dignity, independence, choice or person-centred outcomes.”

“Leadership and governance were not effective. Systems did not provide leaders with clear oversight of risk or performance, and there was limited evidence of learning, improvement or sustainable change. The provider had not demonstrated the ability to identify and address concerns or ensure safe, consistent, high-quality care.”

“This provider has remained in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a time frame within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.”