CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wood Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staffing levels were safe, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were managed safely. Some premises risk assessments had not always been reviewed annually, and infection control audits did not cover every part of the plan.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with health, eating and drinking, staff training and the Mental Capacity Act. Previous gaps in staff supervision, appraisals and monthly weight checks had been identified, with the new manager putting systems in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's communication methods, preferences and needs, and supported people to develop and maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and followed by staff. People took part in activities they enjoyed, kept in contact with important people and had access to a complaints process that inspectors found was used appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leadership was visible and the manager had introduced regular supervision and observations for staff. There was no registered manager in post at the inspection, but the manager was in the process of registering with the CQC and quality audits were in place.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Wood Close was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 29 March 2018. One inspector visited, spoke with two residents, two relatives, the manager and two staff, and looked at care records, medicines records, staff files and other documents. Six health and social care professionals were contacted, but none replied.
The home supported five adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported by enough suitably checked staff, and given medicines safely. They also found good support with health, food, communication, independence, activities and family relationships.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was still Good overall, the same as at the previous inspection on 29 October 2015. Inspectors identified some checks that needed strengthening, but did not report a breach of regulations.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff were available to support people safely. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff worked with residents.
“We observed there were enough staff to support people safely and staff numbers were in line with the levels the manager told us were required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, respectful and person-centred way. They understood individual communication methods and preferences.
“We observed staff cared for people with kindness. Staff spent time interacting with people throughout our inspection and staff spoke to people respectfully and appropriately.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, likes, dislikes, health needs and communication preferences. Staff supported people to take part in activities and maintain important relationships.
“Care plans were person-centred, based around people's individual needs.” from the report
Support for independence
People were involved in household tasks and supported to maintain their daily living skills. The home also introduced equipment to help one person make tea independently.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Improving management systems
The new manager had introduced regular supervision, appraisals and staff observations. These systems were intended to improve staff support and monitor the quality of care.
“The provider had suitable quality assurance processes with regular audits of the service.” from the report
Premises risk reviews
needs fixingSome risks relating to the premises had not been reviewed every year as expected. The manager said these would be reviewed as soon as possible.
“Although the provider assessed risks relating to the premises we found these had not always been reviewed annually in line with best practice.” from the report
Monitoring people's weight
needs fixingMonthly weight checks had not always been completed under the previous management. The manager said they would ensure these checks were carried out to monitor people's health.
“Records showed under previous management monthly checks of people's weight had not always been carried out.” from the report
- 01Have all premises risk assessments now been reviewed annually, and how do you track when the next review is due?
- 02How have you strengthened infection control audits so they cover every part of the infection control plan?
- 03Are monthly weight checks now completed for everyone who needs them, and what happens if a person's weight changes?
- 04What further training or support was given to the staff member who needed more help understanding the Mental Capacity Act?
- 05Has the manager completed CQC registration, and how are staff supervision and appraisal arrangements working now?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, and all five Good ratings remained unchanged from the previous inspection in 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 2018 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 Wood Close
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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.