CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodbury View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safeguarding knowledge and improved medicines management. Staff also used risk assessments and new falls protocols to help keep people safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, worked with healthcare professionals and followed guidance for eating and drinking difficulties. One en-suite bathroom had mould and an unpleasant smell and was still waiting for refurbishment.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff supported their choices, independence and personal goals. Relatives spoke positively about the staff and said people were happy living at the home.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed, with guidance about communication and individual preferences. People were supported to enjoy activities, holidays and family relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider had quality checks, gathered feedback and worked with other professionals. Staff and relatives reported improvements since the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and clear improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating, but one bathroom still needed refurbishment.
The unannounced inspection took place on 9 January 2020. One inspector spoke with six staff members, reviewed care, medicines and management records, observed care, and contacted two relatives afterwards.
The home supported two people with learning disabilities and could support up to five people. Inspectors found people were comfortable and happy, and staff knew their needs, preferences and communication styles well.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says each area had improved from Requires Improvement at the last inspection, published on 26 November 2019.
Most of the earlier problems had been addressed, including medicines checks, food records, secure storage of confidential information and recording end of life preferences. One en-suite bathroom still had mould and an unpleasant smell while awaiting refurbishment.
Choice and independence
The home supported people to make choices, develop skills and become more independent. Staff used least restrictive support and worked towards individual goals.
“The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Detailed personal care
Care plans gave staff clear information about individual needs, interests, communication and preferences. Staff knew people well and provided personalised support.
“People's care plans was very detailed and informative. It provided staff with enough information to ensure staff understood the person's particular support needs.” from the report
Safer medicines practice
The earlier medicines problems had been addressed. Staff had training and competency checks, and medicines were audited and handled safely.
“Medicines were now received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Support to stay connected
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed, attend hydrotherapy, visit family and take holidays. Relatives were welcomed to visit.
“People were assisted by staff to have regular holidays. Photographs were displayed around the home, showing people having fun.” from the report
Improved leadership
The registered manager and provider had regular quality checks and used feedback to improve care. Relatives and staff described improvements since the previous inspection.
“There were effective quality assurance and auditing systems in place designed to drive improvements in the service's performance.” from the report
Bathroom still awaiting refurbishment
needs fixingOne person's en-suite bathroom had mould around the floor and an unpleasant smell. The person had to use a vacant room across the hallway for showers temporarily.
“There was mould around the bathroom floor and a malodour present. The person had to use a vacant room for their shower across the hallway as a temporary measure.” from the report
- 01Has the en-suite bathroom with mould and an unpleasant smell now been refurbished?
- 02What temporary arrangements were made for the person using a different room for showers, and were these arrangements ended safely?
- 03How are medicines competency checks and audits kept up to date for every staff member?
- 04How will my relative be involved in reviewing their care plan, activities and personal goals?
- 05What support can the home provide for my relative's communication, healthcare and eating or drinking needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including both the premises and the care provided; all five ratings improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 January 2020 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, January 2019
Woodbury View rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff but gaps in medicines, incident records, training and confidentiality.
The inspection took place without notice on 26 November 2018, with a second day on 28 November. Inspectors spoke with relatives, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, accidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported three people at the time of the inspection and specialised in complex needs, autism and learning disabilities. People received their medicines on time and staff knew people’s needs, but checks and records were not always reliable.
Inspectors found out-of-date food, delays in seeking some professional advice, gaps in staff training and information about one person’s medicines displayed publicly. The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas and overall.
The inspection was prompted partly by a reported death. The report says the circumstances of that death were not examined because they were subject to a safeguarding investigation.
Safeguarding awareness
Staff knew how to recognise, report and respond to possible abuse. They were also aware of the whistleblowing process.
“Staff had received training in, and understood, how to recognise, respond to and report abuse.” from the report
Support with choices
Staff used communication aids and offered people choices about routines, clothing, food and activities.
“Despite people having little verbal communication staff offered people the opportunity to tell them what their views were around their preferred daily routines.” from the report
Suitable recruitment checks
The report found that recruitment checks included interviews, references and Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“This included a formal interview, two references and a Disclosure and Barring Service check [DBS].” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and without unpleasant smells. Staff used protective equipment when preparing food and providing personal care.
“We observed the home environment to be clean and odour free.” from the report
Complaints process
Relatives knew how to complain and felt comfortable raising concerns. Complaints seen by inspectors had been recorded and answered according to the home’s policy.
“We saw any complaints received were recorded and responded to, in line with the provider's complaint policy.” from the report
Medicines checks and records
seriousNot all staff had their medicine skills checked annually. Storage temperatures and opening dates were not always recorded, and one medicine supply did not match the prescribed amount.
“Staff medication competencies had not been checked annually to ensure they continued to display safe medicine administration practice.” from the report
Incident and falls monitoring
seriousThe home did not analyse incidents for patterns or trends. A reported fall was not entered in the falls record, so there was limited evidence that lessons were being used to prevent further incidents.
“There was no monthly analysis to identify any trends undertaken.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingStaff said they needed more training to support people’s specific behaviours and autism-related needs. Some staff had only received autism training when they started work.
“Staff told us the only training they had received in this subject, was when they first started work at the home.” from the report
Confidential information displayed
needs fixingDetailed information about one person’s medicines was displayed in a communal area and could be seen by visitors.
“This information was on view to any visitors” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingCare planning did not identify end-of-life wishes for everyone living at the home.
“They didn't have processes in place to identify people's end-of-life care wishes for all the people living at the home.” from the report
Food and kitchen checks
needs fixingInspectors found food beyond its date and food in the fridge without opening dates. The kitchen was also in a poor state of repair.
“On the first day of our inspection we found out of date food in the kitchen” from the report
- 01Have all staff now had annual checks of their competence to administer medicines, and how are medicine storage temperatures and opening dates recorded?
- 02How are accidents, falls and other incidents now analysed for patterns, and how do you show that lessons have been acted on?
- 03What autism and positive behaviour training has each staff member completed since this inspection?
- 04How do you prevent confidential information about residents being displayed where visitors can see it?
- 05Have end-of-life wishes been discussed and recorded for every person living at the home?
This was an unannounced inspection over two days covering all five questions; the circumstances of a reported death were not examined because they were subject to a safeguarding investigation, and all five previous Good ratings were changed to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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.
Every inspection of Woodbury View
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 August 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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 £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.