Woodlands Lodge Care Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Inadequate

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

Woodlands Lodge Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 54 people. There were 24 people living at the home at the time of our site visits. This assessment took place between 10 to 21 October 2024. This assessment was prompted due to concerns that were shared with us by the local authority. The service was in an organisational safeguarding process. An embargo was in place, and no admissions were being accepted. We found two breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment and governance. Staff did not consistently protect people from abuse and improper treatment. Staff did not always assess risks to people's health and safety or mitigate them where identified. People did not always have care plans to guide safe practice. Staff had not been recruited safely. Governance systems and audits were not effective in identifying or addressing areas for improvement. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to our concerns.

People's experience of this service

Most people told us they felt safe. We received mixed views about staffing levels. Some people felt there were enough staff, while others shared concerns about the staffing levels. People gave examples where they felt there were not enough staff to support them safely. One person did not feel safe because they had to wait a long time for staff to respond to their calls for assistance, and they were unhappy with the impact of this. Another person said, "There's not enough staff in the morning and over lunch time.” We observed communal lounges were often left unsupervised for long periods of time. People also told us there were limited activities offered, which affected their wellbeing. There were risks to people which had not been identified, reported, managed, or monitored to ensure people were safe and protected from harm as far as possible. People did not experience a positive culture and were not always listened to. People were not protected from the risk of infection as the service had not been kept clean. Staff did not encourage people to wash hands or change clothes when stained and dirty. People felt they had enough to eat and drink, and their preferred choices were met. One person said, “Meals are good." At breakfast, they come and ask you what you want. I have bacon and eggs on a slice of bread." Another person said, “Can’t grumble [about food]. We get breakfast and dinner, then just a sandwich, then you might get a bit of dinner at teatime." Most people spoken with made positive comments about the staff. Comments included, “They’re [staff] very good” and “Not too bad, quite pleasant." While feedback about the service was mixed, our assessment found that care did not meet the expected standards.