Woodlands Court Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 7 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

At the time of the inspection, people did not always receive care that was safe, effective and consistently person-centred. While staff were kind and caring in their interactions, improvements were needed across several areas to ensure people’s needs were fully met.

There were concerns in relation to safety. Medicines were not always well managed, and there were delays in people receiving prescribed treatment. Risks identified by external professionals were not always acted upon in a timely way, and environmental concerns, including fire safety, had not been fully addressed. Infection prevention and control practices were not always followed consistently.

Care planning required improvement. Although assessments and risk assessments were in place, care plans were not always accurate, clearly structured or reflective of people’s needs. This meant staff did not always have the guidance required to provide consistent and effective care. People were not always involved in planning their care, and records did not clearly show how outcomes were monitored or improved.

Care was not always delivered in line with best practice. This included how people living with dementia were supported to make choices, and how guidance from external professionals was followed. Partnership working was inconsistent, with delays in working proactively with other services to meet people’s needs.

The service was not always responsive. Opportunities to involve people and relatives in the service were limited, and systems to gather feedback were not in place. Activities were not consistently provided to support people’s independence and wellbeing, and the environment did not always promote dignity or independence.

Leadership and governance were not always effective. Although a new registered manager was in post and staff spoke positively about the direction of the service, there was limited provider oversight. Systems to monitor quality and drive improvement were not robust, and the service was not always working in line with its own policies. Improvements were often reactive rather than proactive. The service was working with the local authority to make improvements; however, progress had been slow and recording to demonstrate improvements was limited.

Despite these concerns, staff felt able to raise issues, and there were examples of positive partnership working once concerns had been identified.