Woodlands Court Care Home

“People received safe care from staff who completed regular training to ensure their skills and knowledge remained up to date. Enough staff were deployed to meet needs and keep people safe. Accidents, incidents and falls were managed appropriately, though more focus was required on detailing outcomes and lessons learned. The home was clean, equipment was safe to use and ongoing checks were completed to ensure compliance with regulations. People received their medicines as prescribed, however some aspects of the medicines management process required improving.”

“ ”

“Assessments were used prior to admission, to determine if the home could meet people’s needs. Staff sought people’s consent prior to providing care. However, where people lacked capacity to consent, recording of family involvement and best interest decision making required strengthening. People had enough to eat and drink to stay healthy, though food and fluid records did not always capture this effectively. Staff worked with all agencies involved in people’s care for the best outcomes and a smooth transition when moving services. The provider monitored people’s health, and referred people to healthcare professionals as required. People’s care and treatment was not always effectively monitored, to ensure identified outcomes were being achieved.”

“ ”

“People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and ensured their wishes were taken into account when providing care. People were treated as individuals and offered choices on a daily basis. The provider supported staff wellbeing and recognised good practice through employee of the month awards.”

“ ”

“People were involved in decisions about their care, though this was not always captured within care records. Care plans contained a range of person centred information, to help staff better understand people as individuals. However, greater care was needed to ensure all care plans contained sufficient detail and any contradictory information removed. Staff provided information to people in ways they could understand. People knew how to give feedback, or raise concerns and were confident the provider would take it seriously and take action. People and relatives views were sought via meetings and questionnaires, though a system to communicate what actions were being taken based on feedback received had yet to be implemented. The provider had been commended for the quality of their end of life care. They worked closely with the local hospice, who were complimentary about the skills of staff and levels of care provided to people.”

“ ”

“Leaders were reported to be approachable, helpful and supportive. People and relatives felt the home was well-led and would recommend it to others. Staff felt supported to give feedback and were treated equally, free from bullying or harassment. The provider completed a range of audits and governance processes to help monitor and drive improvements, although these had not consistently identified shortfalls in practice. The provider worked closely and collaboratively with a range of health and social care professionals, all of whom were complimentary about the home, staff and care provided.”