CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Woodlarks Centre
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, April 2021
The Woodlarks Centre was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and support for people during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 April 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home had arrangements to reduce the spread of infection. These included testing, personal protective equipment, hand sanitiser, cleaning, social distancing and support for safe self-isolation.
People were supported to have visitors in a COVID-19 secure garden pod, take part in activities and keep in contact with the community. Staff were observed to know people well and reassure them about COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. The report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other four areas of care.
Safe visiting
People could receive visitors in a COVID-19 secure pod in the garden. They were involved in discussing visiting arrangements.
“People were supported to host visitors in a COVID-19 secure pod in the garden.” from the report
Testing and self-isolation
The management arranged ongoing COVID-19 testing for people, staff and visitors. Staff knew how to recognise symptoms and when to self-isolate.
“Staff confirmed they had ongoing access to testing and were aware of how to recognise COVID-19 symptoms and how and when to self-isolate.” from the report
Infection control measures
The home had hand sanitiser, PPE storage, cleaning products and visible infection control guidance in place.
“hand sanitising rub dispensers were placed outside each person's room and PPE storage cupboards or sanitising wipes were available in key points of the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. They saw cleaning taking place during the inspection.
“We saw staff undertook cleaning on the day of our inspection.” from the report
Support for wellbeing
People could take part in activities, keep in touch with the community and receive reassurance from staff about COVID-19.
“People told us this support minimised the impact the pandemic had on their wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits arranged now, and is the COVID-19 secure garden pod still available?
- 02How do you provide testing and manage symptoms or self-isolation when someone may have an infection?
- 03How often are people's rooms and specialist equipment cleaned and disinfected?
- 04Where can people access PPE, hand sanitiser and other cleaning products?
- 05What ratings or recent assessments cover care areas that this inspection did not assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 2021 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some staff supervision and recruitment records to improve.
This was an unannounced, scheduled comprehensive inspection on 7 February 2019. Inspectors spoke with nine people, four staff and two relatives by telephone. They reviewed care records, staff files, policies and the home’s quality checks.
The home provided care without nursing for up to 23 people. At the inspection, 22 people lived there, many with physical or learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported to make choices and stay independent.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the legal requirements were met. Some improvements were identified, including making staff supervision more regular and ensuring all recruitment references are suitable.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, published in July 2016. This inspection found that the Good rating had been maintained.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and risks were recorded and managed.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions between people and staff. People were treated with dignity and encouraged to make choices.
“We observed caring interactions between people and staff throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s backgrounds, interests and preferences. Rooms were decorated to reflect people’s tastes.
“People's care plans were person centred, and their rooms personalised and decorated to their own taste.” from the report
Activities and independence
People had a wide choice of activities and were supported to attend college and seek employment. They were also encouraged to do everyday tasks themselves where safe.
“People were supported and encouraged to apply and attend college courses and seek employment opportunities.” from the report
Active management
The management team used audits, meetings and feedback to find problems and make changes.
“Regular audits were carried out to monitor and assure the quality of the care that people received.” from the report
Staff supervision was not always regular
needs fixingInspectors found that individual staff supervisions were not always held regularly. The manager had plans for at least three supervisions a year and an annual appraisal.
“Individual supervisions with staff were not always held regularly.” from the report
One recruitment reference was unsuitable
needs fixingFor one staff member, one of the two references came from a friend despite the application showing current work with other care providers. The provider said it would ensure the relevant documents were in place.
“Despite this, one of the two references obtained for this member of staff was written by a friend.” from the report
- 01How often does each staff member now receive supervision and an annual appraisal?
- 02How do you check that every employment reference comes from an appropriate source?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty at different times of day and night?
- 04How will you support my relative to take part in activities, college or employment if they want to?
- 05How are people and their families involved in regular care plan reviews?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the Good ratings from the previous inspection were reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 2019 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 The Woodlarks Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.