CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodcot Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, effective infection controls and safe medicines management. Risk assessments and plans were in place to help staff manage risks such as falls, choking and diabetes.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs, choices and dietary requirements were assessed. Staff were trained and people were supported to access doctors, nurses, therapists and hospital appointments.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and caring. People and relatives said their views were listened to, and staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s needs and preferences, and complaints were followed up. On the first inspection day, some epilepsy and diabetes plans lacked enough detail, but these were improved by the second day.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open, person-centred culture. The manager used audits, meetings, questionnaires and people’s views to monitor care and plan improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Woodcot Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some environmental improvements still needed.
This was the home’s first inspection. It was unannounced and took place on 27 May and 8 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about staffing, infection control, communication and personal hygiene. Inspectors found no evidence that people were harmed by these concerns. Staff were suitably recruited and trained, infection controls were in place, medicines were managed safely, and people received support from health professionals when needed.
People were treated kindly and respectfully. Relatives spoke highly of the care. The home was generally clean and well maintained, but inspectors identified some areas needing attention. All five areas inspected were rated Good. This means the report found people’s needs were being met and the home was being managed consistently.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found a consistent staff team, enough staff on shifts and an effective recruitment process with the required checks.
“There was an effective recruitment process in place, and staff recruited were suitable for the role they were employed for.” from the report
Infection control
The home had measures covering visitors, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and visits during the pandemic.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people’s interests, preferences and how to support them when they were anxious.
“Staff treated people in a kind, caring and respectful way.” from the report
Health support
People received timely care from health professionals, including doctors, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech and language therapists.
“People were supported to access a wide range of health care professionals and people received timely care and treatment.” from the report
Management oversight
The home used audits, questionnaires, meetings and people’s views to monitor quality and plan improvements.
“This included completing audits, analysing questionnaires, holding meetings and listening to individual views.” from the report
Environmental improvements
minorThe home was generally clean and well maintained, but inspectors found some areas that needed attention. The manager said these were included in a development plan.
“The home was generally clean and well maintained. However, we identified some areas which required attention.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, some care plans did not give enough guidance about epilepsy and diabetes. The home took immediate action, and inspectors found more detailed plans on the second day.
“Care plans were in place, however, on day one of the inspection inspectors identified some of these plans did not include robust information in relation to epilepsy and diabetes” from the report
- 01Which environmental improvements identified in the development plan have now been completed?
- 02How do you make sure epilepsy and diabetes care plans contain enough detail for staff to follow safely?
- 03How many permanent chefs are now in post, and how has the catering and dining experience changed?
- 04How will you support activities and family contact for people who are isolating after hospital discharge?
- 05How are complaints and concerns recorded, followed up and used to improve care?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 2021 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 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention arrangements, but no people were living there during the visit.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 October 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because the home was planned as a designated setting for people discharged from hospital with Covid-19.
No people had been admitted when inspectors visited. They found plans for essential visiting only, with health checks, temperature checks and personal protective equipment. Bedrooms had en-suite facilities, nurse call systems and surfaces designed to support cleaning.
Staff had infection control and personal protective equipment training. There were plans for weekly Covid-19 testing, enhanced cleaning, safe laundry handling and monthly external infection control audits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of the quality of care, and the report does not give ratings for caring, effective, responsive or well-led.
Protective equipment
Staff had been trained to use protective equipment, with changing areas, guidance and sufficient supplies described.
“Staff had received training in the appropriate use of PPE, infection prevention and control training had been carried out by all staff.” from the report
Cleaning and environment
The rooms and shared areas were designed to support cleaning and social distancing. Enhanced cleaning included frequently touched areas.
“Enhanced cleaning schedules including regular cleaning of touch areas such as handrails and door handles were in place.” from the report
Infection control oversight
The home had an infection control policy, regular external audits and action plans to track improvements.
“Infection control auditing was carried out monthly by external auditors and action plans put in place by the registered manager to monitor improvements and recommendations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have the planned infection control arrangements worked since people were admitted?
- 02How often are staff now tested for Covid-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 03Are there still enough personal protective equipment supplies for staff and visitors?
- 04How are visits currently managed, and what exceptions are made for end-of-life care?
- 05What did the monthly external infection control audits find, and have all resulting actions been completed?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and no people had been admitted. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 2021 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 Woodcot Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.