Woodlands Park Care 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

We identified 1 breach of the legal regulations. Systems were in place to monitor the ongoing quality and safety of the service. However, these were not always effective in ensuring issues from audits were actioned in a timely manner to mitigate risks to people. Records were not consistently well maintained and accurate to promote safe care. We found delays or omissions in reporting of reportable events to CQC and the local authority. Staff and leaders did not routinely and consistently follow the provider’s policies. For instance, where staff had been put at risk of harm by people who were experiencing distress, they did not always complete an incident form. We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the management of the service. Most relatives told us the registered manager maintained good contact with them. The provider invested in staff and supported them to develop in their role.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff who provided feedback, gave us mixed view about how they felt supported. All staff spoken to told us they were aware of the core values of the provider.This was communicated in regular correspondence with staff, which included monthly newsletters. We received mixed views from staff, some staff told us they felt “controlled” or felt managers at all levels could involve all staff in decisions affecting them. Some staff commented that the registered managers spent a lot of time in their office, rather than supporting them in the home. However, other staff told us they felt supported by more senior members of staff and told us they were readily available for them.

The provider widely communicated its core values and beliefs to staff and the general public. The provider had a clear vision and policies and procedures were reviewed regularly. The management team were able to demonstrate how they worked with external healthcare professionals to have a positive impact on people’s health and wellbeing. For instance, one person was admitted to the home barely able to weight-bare. The home had worked with physiotherapists to improve the person’s mobility and we witnessed the person enjoying activities of their choice when we visited the home.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how the home was managed. Some staff felt fully supported by the registered managers, however, others felt they could be more inclusive and involve them in driving improvement in the organisation. The provider had systems in place to support staff. These included team meetings and staff surveys.

Systems were in place for the provider to celebrate staff success. Staff had recently been congratulated at an award ceremony. Staff were regularly nominated for certain accolades, which included long service awards. We were provided with examples of how the home had advocated for people and their relatives’ wishes. For example, supporting people who had lived in the home for many years to remain in the home, when their funding authority suggested the person move. Staff provided good evidence to the funding authorities reasons why they should remain at the care home. However, the registered manager was not always aware of events in the home, for instance accidents and incidents and assaults on people.

We received mixed feedback from staff. Some staff told us they felt able to raise concerns or areas of improvement to the management team, other told us they did not.

The provider and registered manager had processes in place to ensure staff had opportunities to share their views. The provider produced a monthly newsletter. Staff were reminded about a 24 hour, 7 days a week confidential assistance service available. Staff had access to counselling, financial and health services, as examples. The regional manager visited the home regularly and spoke with staff on a one to one basis. The provider had a whistleblowing policy which was available to staff.

The registered managers told us in the Provider Information Return (PIR) they were an equal opportunity employer. The registered managers was able to provide us with examples of how they had supported the cultural needs of some the staff. We observed the workforce deomstrated the diverstity of the community and people living at the home.

The provider and registered manager had processes in place to ensure staff had opportunity to be treated with respect and ensure their cultural needs were met. This including meeting with staff individually and as a group. The provider told us how they had been able to support staff requests for a change in working days to accommodate their own personal commitments. The provider and registered manager described the care home as a “family” and were able to demonstrate how staff had been supported to develop within the company over the years.

We received mixed feedback from staff about how the care home and company were managed. Staff and leaders were aware of the processes in place to provide managerial oversight of the care home. Staff were involved in quality monitoring processes.

Regular audits did not always pick up some of the issues we found. For instance, where safeguarding referrals had not been made to the local authority or where statutory notification were required to be made. We found staff who were not based at the home, had supported the care home staff to submit information to us as part of this assessment. We found contradictions in the information sent to us. We found assessments and best interests meetings had not always been carried out when required. We discussed this with a registered manager. The provider confirmed action had been taken following our feedback. We found improvements were required in record management. We found records were not always contemporaneous and accurate. We reviewed daily notes and found the language was not always respectful of people and alluded to poor quality of outcomes for people. The provider and registered manager had processes in place to support management of the home. The provider had introduced a quality assurance process across all of the care homes it managed. This included a core set of standards and evidence which needed to be reviewed by the senior management team. However, we found these were not effective. We found a number of meetings took place to monitor the safety and care within the home. However, we found some delays in action being taken when the provider had been made aware of required improvements. The service had been visited by Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue service in November 2023. A letter of Fire Safety Matters was issued on 20 November 2023. The letter identified three actions and suggested they needed to be completed “as soon as possible”. When we visiited the home on 19 August 2024, we found some of the actions were still outstanding. We asked the provider to ensure all actions were completed without delay. We later received confirmation all action had been completed.

We received mixed feedback from people and their relatives about the opportunities people had to access outdoor spaces. Some people told us they did not feel they had opportunities to engage in activities of their choice. Comments included, “You have to do what they [staff] want you to do, if someone wants to watch a football match [on the television] they get their way and we all have to watch the football match”. Other comments included, “They only let you do things if it suits them” and “The gardens, I love the gardens but they shut it up, they have locked it up and they only take you if they have time to go with you”. Another person told us “I am trapped here, I can’t get out and there is no way that I can”. Relatives told us they were aware of some activities within the home, but comments included “She [family member] loves music, there was more for her in her last home, less so here, they could have some more music I think”. However, other relatives commented on the people who visit the home to sing, had a positive impact on their family member. The provider showed us examples of people engaged in activities both within the home and outside.

Staff supported people to feel part of the community. The home was visited by local church groups and children from a local school. After we visited the home, the provider informed us people were supported with monthly bus trips.

We received feedback from external healthcare professionals who felt staff knew people well in the care home.

The provider and management team were keen to share positive experiences of people engaging in activities, to promote a good community within the care home. This included, showing us people planting in the garden, collecting eggs from chickens in the back garden and entertaining family at garden events. The staff held a number of charity events to raise money for local and national causes. Some family members also took part in charity events to raise money for the care home.

Staff told us they had opportunities to undertake training. Staff and leaders told us they used a reflective approach to learnin

We found the provider had planned for staff to undertake specific training to improve their interactions with people. However, we noted there were delays in this being arranged. For instance, in December 2023 they told us they were going to arrange for staff to complete The Gold Standards Framework (GSF) in end of life care, we found two staff had completed this to date. We found staff did not always promote dignity when supporting people with dementia. The daily care notes referred to people with language which did not uphold their dignity or follow best practice. The registered manager facilitated reflective discussions after people had died at the home. This was an opportunity to improve practice.