Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Woodborough

Goodpublished 10 January 2019, 7 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Most risks to individuals had been assessed, and staff understood safeguarding procedures. However, some risks from doors in a self-contained flat had not been identified or made safe at the time of inspection.
Effective?
Good
Staff had suitable training and supported people with healthcare, food, decision-making and lawful restrictions. People's health needs and dietary requirements were understood.
Caring?
Good
Staff knew people well and were kind and patient. People were involved in daily decisions, supported to be independent, and treated with privacy and dignity.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personalised and people helped plan their care. People chose activities, maintained important relationships and knew how to raise concerns.
Well-led?
Good
The home had regular audits and checks, and people's views were sought. There was no registered manager in post, but the service was being managed by a registered manager from another home while recruitment took place.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2019

Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but some environmental risks had not been identified.

This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 26 November 2018. Inspectors met three of the four people living in the home, spoke with staff and managers, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.

The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. People were supported by kind staff who promoted independence, respected privacy and dignity, helped them make choices, and arranged activities that mattered to them.

Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Most individual risks had been assessed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff. However, inspectors found that some doors in a self-contained flat could have blocked access during an emergency. The provider confirmed after the inspection that the doors had been altered.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind relationships

    Inspectors saw staff spending time with people in a kind and patient way. Care was not limited to completing tasks.

    “The interactions we observed between the staff and people who used the service were kind and patient.” from the report
  • Choice and independence

    People helped make decisions about their care, routines, meals, shopping and activities. Staff supported people to remain in control of their lives.

    “People were involved in making decisions about their care.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care records included people's histories, relationships, likes, dislikes and support needs. People were involved in developing their care plans.

    “Each person had a care plan which was personalised to their own needs.” from the report
  • Safe medicines

    Inspectors found that medicines were stored securely, given at the right time and recorded properly. Staff understood people's medicine needs.

    “People received their medicine from staff and records were completed to show these were given.” from the report
  • Quality checks

    The home carried out audits covering care records, medicines, infection control, health and safety, accidents and incidents.

    “Regular quality audits and checks were carried out and used as opportunities to make improvements.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unidentified environmental risks

    serious

    Some doors in the self-contained flat could have blocked staff from entering during an emergency. Inspectors raised this with the provider, which later confirmed that the doors had been altered.

    “There was a risk that the door could be blocked and staff would be unable to gain access in the event of an emergency.” from the report
  • No registered manager in post

    minor

    The home did not have its own registered manager during the inspection. It was being managed by a registered manager from another nearby home while the provider recruited.

    “There was no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes were made to the doors in the self-contained flat after the inspection?
  2. 02How do you now identify and review risks in the home and its buildings?
  3. 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home while a registered manager is being recruited?
  4. 04How are people's personalised care plans reviewed when their needs change?
  5. 05How do people and their families raise concerns, and what happens after a complaint is made?

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the overall rating remained Good compared with June 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 January 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Woodborough

2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Woodborough →

  2. June 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. February 2014

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 February 2014.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham

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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

See live-in carers near NottinghamProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.