CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Tikvah Woodpeckers
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2017
Tikvah Woodpeckers was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and privacy issues to address.
This was an unannounced inspection by one inspector. The report says the visit took place on 14 November 2017. Inspectors reviewed records for three people, observed care in communal areas, spoke with four staff and received feedback from other professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and staff who understood people's individual needs.
People were supported with kindness, respect, choice and meaningful activities. Their care plans were detailed and personalised. The home had a registered manager and systems to monitor and improve care.
Inspectors also found some shortfalls. Training records were not fully accurate, supervision arrangements had fallen behind the provider's timetable, and bathroom windows might not provide enough privacy at night. These issues were being addressed, but families should ask how they were resolved.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Medicines were given by trained staff and no administration errors had been reported in the previous 12 months.
“People continued to be given their medicines safely by staff who were appropriately trained to administer medicines and whose competency to do so was tested regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded to their communication, including facial expressions and body language. Inspectors saw care that was friendly, caring and respectful.
“People continued to be supported by a dedicated and caring staff team who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's individual needs, preferences, communication and routines. They were reviewed and changed when people's needs changed.
“People's care remained totally person centred and support plans were detailed and personalised.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were offered flexible activities, outings, day trips and short holidays. Activities were matched to their abilities, preferences, moods and wellbeing.
“The service continued to provide people with a flexible activities programme which responded to their abilities, preferences, choices, moods and well-being.” from the report
Management and improvement
The home had audits, action plans and systems for listening to people, families and staff. Inspectors found the service continued to be well-led.
“The service was monitored and assessed by the manager, staff team and provider to ensure the standard of care offered was maintained and improved.” from the report
Medicines training records
needs fixingThe training record gave the wrong frequency for classroom-based medicines training. The organisation knew about the discrepancy and was working to correct it.
“We noted from the staff training record that there was an error in the required frequency of classroom based medicines training.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingMost mandatory training was up to date, but some completed training had not been recorded by the training department. The provider was addressing this.
“However, the record was not entirely accurate as training that had been undertaken had not been acknowledged or recorded by the training department.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingFormal supervision had fallen short of the provider's requirements. New dates had been scheduled, although staff said support and guidance were available.
“The registered manager acknowledged that this programme had fallen short of the providers requirements but dates were now scheduled to meet the timescales.” from the report
Bathroom privacy
needs fixingBathroom windows had no blinds. The obscure glass might not provide enough privacy, particularly at night, so the manager agreed to investigate further.
“Whilst the glass used was of an obscure nature it was not thought that this would provide sufficient privacy particularly at night on its own.” from the report
DoLS applications
needs fixingThe home had been advised to apply for authorisations for all seven residents. The manager had done this but was still checking whether applications were needed for at least two people.
“The registered manager had complied with this request but was not entirely convinced of the need with at least two of the people living in the service.” from the report
- 01What has been done to correct the medicines training frequency and make sure the training records are accurate?
- 02Are staff now receiving formal supervision within the provider's required timescales?
- 03What was the outcome of the investigation into privacy in the bathroom windows, especially at night?
- 04What is the current position on the DoLS applications for all seven people, including the two applications the manager questioned?
- 05How can a person with limited verbal communication raise a complaint or show that they are unhappy with their care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, although the report gives conflicting dates and also lists 19 October 2017 as the inspection visit date. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 2017 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 Tikvah Woodpeckers
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2017Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“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.