CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodbridge House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff, but serious gaps in risk management, medicines, care planning and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 November 2021. Two inspectors spoke with three relatives and five staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records. The home was supporting nine people with learning disabilities and autistic people.
Inspectors found people were not always protected from avoidable harm. Risks linked to constipation, choking and emotional distress were not managed well. Medicines records and guidance were incomplete. Incidents were not always recorded or reviewed, so lessons were missed.
People were supported by enough staff and infection control was managed safely. Staff knew people well, supported independence and treated people with dignity in many situations. However, care planning was not always person-centred, activities and family contact were not supported consistently, and leaders' checks had not found the problems.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. The detailed Caring section was rated Good. This was the first inspection under the new provider, which had taken over in September 2020. The previous provider had been rated Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff were available to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Relatives also said staffing levels appeared adequate.
“Enough staff were deployed to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff often treated people with warmth and supported their independence, privacy and dignity. Relatives described the atmosphere as friendly.
“We observed a calm environment in the home.” from the report
Health support
People received health checks and staff worked with professionals such as speech and language therapists and occupational therapists.
“Staff worked with other agencies to ensure people had effective care such as SLT and Occupational Therapists.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, testing, protective equipment and visiting arrangements were being managed safely.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Risks were not controlled
seriousImportant risks, including constipation, choking and physical distress, were not assessed or explained clearly enough for staff. This put people, staff and others at risk of harm.
“There was a lack of effective risk management in the home.” from the report
Medicines records and guidance
seriousAs-required medicines did not always have instructions, and some medicines were not recorded correctly. Audits had failed to identify these problems.
“Medicines were not always managed safely and in line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) best practice guidelines for medicines in care homes.” from the report
Incomplete care planning
needs fixingSome care plans missed important needs, including sensory needs and behaviour support. People and relatives were not consistently involved in planning or reviewing care.
“People's care was not always planned in a person-centred way.” from the report
Activities and family contact
needs fixingThe home was not proactive enough in helping people take part in activities they enjoyed or maintain contact with relatives. Transport problems sometimes stopped visits.
“There was a lack of a proactive approach to supporting people to do the activities they enjoy.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and incident reviews did not identify or address several important problems. Some records were out of date or belonged to a previous home.
“Governance systems in place had not ensured high quality and safe care.” from the report
Failure to notify CQC
seriousThe provider did not tell CQC about a significant incident involving an injury, as required by law.
“Statutory Notifications had not been sent to CQC.” from the report
- 01What new risk assessments and staff guidance are now in place for constipation and choking?
- 02How are as-required medicines recorded, reviewed and explained to staff now?
- 03What positive behaviour support training have staff completed, and what strategies are used when someone becomes distressed?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in writing and reviewing care plans and best-interest decisions?
- 05How will the home make sure people have regular activities and reliable contact with their relatives?
This was the first inspection under the new provider and covered all five CQC key questions, care and the premises, as well as infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 2022 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 Woodbridge House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Medway
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. 78 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.