The Woodlarks Centre

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

Quality monitoring processes were not always effective in identifying where improvements were needed, or in addressing shortfalls where these had been recorded. In addition, audits were not always accurate in the information they recorded, which meant they were not effectual in monitoring and maintaining quality. This was a breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People had opportunities to give their views on a day-to-day basis and via surveys, and these were listened to. If people made suggestions or requested changes, and action plan was developed to implement these. Managers were visible in the home and available when people wished to speak with them. Relative said managers and staff communicated well with them, and that they could always speak to a member of the management team if they needed to. Relatives told us the provider had taken action to address any concerns they raised, and had adopted an open and honest approach if things went wrong. Professionals said there was a positive culture at the service in which staff treated the people with respect. Staff told us they were well-supported by their managers and could seek advice and guidance when they needed it. They said the home had a culture in which people who lived at the home, staff and managers got on well together and cared about each other.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff told us the culture was one in which people who lived at the home, staff and managers got on well together and cared about each other. One member of staff said, "It's like my second home here, because of the family atmosphere. The management, staff, and the residents, we are like a family." A care manager told us they aimed to foster an environment in which all staff understood the provider’s values and contributed to the wellbeing of people who lived at the home. The care manager said, “It is about ensuring we all have the same vision. It is always about trying to get the best outcomes for the individual.”

People told us they were able to contribute their views about their care and the service in general, and that these were listened to. They said they could give feedback about the food at residents' meetings, and suggest items they would like to see included on the menu. One person told us that, if they made a suggestion for the menu, “Sometimes they can't get it, but most of the time they can.” People had opportunities to give their feedback about the home through satisfaction surveys. An action plan had been developed to address any suggestions or requests for changes. Professionals said there was a positive culture at the service in which staff treated the people they cared for and one another with respect. One professional told us that when they had visited the service to carry out an assessment, “Staff clearly demonstrated kindness and compassion and treated the resident and each other with dignity and respect.”

Staff said they were well-supported by their managers and could seek advice and guidance when they needed it. One member of staff told us, “[Care manager] is so friendly; we can share anything with her.” Another member of staff said of a care manager, “If I have some problem, I will speak with [care manager] and he is very helpful. He understands us.” One member of staff told us the management team was supportive as they offered flexible shifts and were understanding, “If we have an emergency.” Another member of staff said, “The management are friendly, and we have the space to talk about any problems or concerns.” Staff said team meetings took place, “Whenever [the management team] want to introduce something, or to change something. They write the things down so that if you forget you can go back and check.”

Relatives told us they could always speak to a member of the management team if they needed to, and that the provider kept them up to date about their family members’ wellbeing. One relative said, “I can speak to either [general manager] or [care manager], whether it is by phone or via email; there is always a quick response.” Another relative told us, “The communication has been very good; they have been very good at keeping us up to speed.” Processes were in place to ensure people and their loved ones could provide feedback on the quality of care they received. Relatives said the provider had taken action to address any concerns they raised. One relative told us, “If I raise something as a concern or a problem, they are very good at acting on it.” Another relative said, “I have never complained, but if I have had any niggles they have always put things right.” However, we identified the language documented in the minutes of staff meetings did not always demonstrate that the management team were open and receptive to feedback. For example, describing people as manipulative and exaggerating the truth. This meant processes to address feedback were not always taken with an objective and respectful approach.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The care manager we spoke with during our site visit told us they had recognised areas where improvements needed to be made and begun to address these. For example, the care manager said they had begun to update people’s risk assessments and risk assessments related to the management of the service, such as the disposal of clinical waste, and the storage and disposal of medicines.

The provider’s quality monitoring processes were not always effective in identifying where action was needed to improve, or in addressing shortfalls where these had been noted. For example, a first aid stock audit recorded how many of each item were present, but not how many of each item should have been in stock. This meant the audit was not effective in checking that sufficient stock of all necessary items was in place. Another first aid stock audit did record how many of each item should have been in stock and how many of each item were present. These figures demonstrated that there were significant shortfalls in first aid stock levels, but there was no evidence that action had been taken to rectify this. Following our onsite assessment, the provider has provided recent audits which show the information is now being recorded more efficiently. We were advised audits of recruitment checks were carried out, but these had not identified the gaps in pre-employment checks we found during our visit. We found the information within audits was not always effective to aid improvements. For example, we reviewed a care plan and pressure prevention audit carried out in January 2024. There was no information on who’s care plan this was so that any shortfalls identified could be resolved. Care planning audits carried out in January 2024 recorded that, where people were unable to provide informed consent to their care, a best interests decision had been made in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 with the involvement of the person’s advocates or representatives. The care plans we checked demonstrated that this was not always the case. We found that some mental capacity assessments recorded people’s next-of-kin had been consulted about decisions, but there was no evidence of involvement of the person’s next-of-kin or recording of their views.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.