CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 22 Woodlands Road
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found unmitigated fire risks, incomplete risk assessments and unsafe recording and use of as-required medicines. Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Mental capacity records, care plans, communication information and health records were not always complete or current. Staff were trained and supported, but some additional training had not been completed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and supported with privacy, independence and important relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Staff understood people's routines, preferences and communication needs and supported activities and daily choices. Communication records were not always up to date.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not reliably identify or correct problems in medicines, risks, care records, health information and fire checks. Relatives and staff said they could raise concerns and felt supported.
What inspectors found, November 2023
22 Woodlands Road is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, respectful care but serious gaps in risk management, medicines and oversight.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 11 and 19 October 2023. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was caring and responsive. Staff knew people well, treated them with dignity, offered choices and supported activities, relationships and independence. Staffing levels and infection control were also found to be satisfactory.
However, people faced increased risks from fire. Medicines records did not always explain why as-required medicines were given or what happened afterwards. Care plans, risk records, health information and daily notes were not always accurate or up to date.
The overall rating and the ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led are Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive are Good. The provider breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. CQC requested an action plan and will monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, respectful interactions. Relatives also described staff as kind and caring.
“We observed positive interactions between staff and people. Staff showed warmth and respect when interacting with people.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, keep their privacy and develop independence and new skills.
“People were supported to maintain their independence and to learn new skills.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
The home had enough staff, including one-to-one support where needed. Recruitment checks, induction and training took place before lone working.
“The service had enough staff, including 1:1 support for people. Relative's and staff told us they felt there were sufficient staff on each shift.” from the report
Support matched to people
Staff knew people's needs, routines and preferences and supported them to take part in activities and learn everyday skills.
“Staff understood the needs of the people living at 22 Woodlands Road.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection risks, personal protective equipment and possible outbreaks were being managed.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
As-required medicines
seriousRecords did not consistently explain why medicines were given or their outcome. One variable-dose medicine was given at the highest dose every time without a recorded reason.
“People were at risk of overuse of medicines.” from the report
Incomplete care and health records
needs fixingCare plans and risk assessments contained missing, conflicting or outdated information. Health results, communication needs and records of distress were also not consistently recorded.
“Care plans did not always contain correct, up to date factual information.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify several problems found by inspectors. Records of daily care, fire checks, medicines and health follow-up were not reliably monitored.
“Systems and processes required further work to ensure they captured information to ensure good oversight.” from the report
Capacity records
needs fixingSome mental capacity assessments and best-interest records did not explain why restrictions were the least restrictive option. CQC recommended that the provider review these records.
“We recommend the provider considers current legislation to ensure capacity assessments are completed in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report
- 01What has been done to fix the fire door and exit problems, and when was each repair checked?
- 02How do you decide the dose of as-required medicine, and how do you record the reason and outcome?
- 03How do you make sure care plans, allergies, communication needs and risk assessments are accurate and regularly updated?
- 04How are distress, daily support and health appointment outcomes recorded and reviewed?
- 05What action has been taken on the CQC breaches and the recommendation about mental capacity assessments?
This was an unannounced inspection of the newly registered care home covering all five key questions, the premises and care provided, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 November 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 22 Woodlands Road
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 September 2022.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.