CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodcote
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, enough staff and suitable arrangements for managing risks, accidents and infections.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support from staff with the right training and skills. The home had improved its arrangements for assessing mental capacity and involving relatives and healthcare professionals in significant decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were courteous and respectful. People were supported to make choices, express their views and maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with accessible information, family contact, hobbies, community activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management checks had improved and regulatory requirements were met. People and relatives considered the home well-run, and staff were encouraged to raise concerns.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier management concerns resolved.
Inspectors visited on 14 June 2019. They spoke with all six people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training, recruitment, complaints and management checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely and had enough trained staff to support them.
Care was personalised. People were supported to make choices, keep in touch with family, follow their interests and use accessible communication. The home also respected people's privacy, dignity and independence.
At the previous inspection in April 2018, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement and there was a breach about management checks. Inspectors found that this had been resolved. One communal bathroom had a badly scratched bath, which the home planned to replace.
Safe support
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Risks were managed while people were still supported to take reasonable risks and remain independent.
“People were safeguarded from situations in which they may be at risk of experiencing abuse.” from the report
Respectful staff
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They knocked before entering private areas and supported people to choose their clothes and daily activities.
“Support staff were consistently courteous, polite and helpful.” from the report
Personalised communication
Support plans used pictures, photographs and drawings where helpful. Staff adapted how they communicated so people could understand choices and agree to support.
“Important parts of each person's support plan presented information in an easy-read way using pictures, photographs and drawings.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its quality checks since the previous inspection. Training records and fire evacuation plans were more detailed and better managed.
“New, more detailed and better completed quality checks had been introduced.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were kept informed and involved in significant decisions where needed. Families were also welcomed and invited to events.
“The manager and the staff do keep in touch with me so I know what's going on.” from the report
Scratched communal bath
minorOne communal bathroom had a badly scratched bath that looked unsightly. The home had identified the problem and planned to replace it.
“However, in one of the communal bathrooms the bath was badly scratched and looked unsightly.” from the report
- 01Has the badly scratched communal bath now been replaced, and are there any other maintenance issues still waiting to be fixed?
- 02How will you support my relative to communicate choices if they use signs, pictures or another form of communication?
- 03How are relatives and healthcare professionals involved when a person cannot make a significant decision?
- 04How do you check that staff have completed all the training needed for my relative's health and support needs?
- 05How will my relative's personal emergency evacuation plan be kept up to date?
This was a planned, announced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises, care provided and how the home was managed. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 July 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but records, decision-making documentation and quality checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 17 April 2018. They observed care, spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, rotas and management documents.
People were found to be safe. Staffing levels were suitable, medicines were managed safely, and staff understood people's risks and safeguarding needs. Staff were caring, knew people well, respected their dignity and supported activities chosen by each person.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement because the service was not always effective or well-led. Some mental capacity records were not person-centred. Care, emergency evacuation and staff training records were incomplete or inconsistent. Audits and surveys did not reliably identify problems or show what action had been taken.
Safety and risk support
The home had detailed, individual risk assessments and enough familiar staff to meet people's needs. Incidents were reviewed and action was taken to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“In-depth risk assessments had been completed for people, staff and the building, that were person and task specific.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience, kindness and respect. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence, and knew people's personal routines well.
“We saw staff were patient, attentive and respectful when they were supporting people.” from the report
Personalised activities
People had choice and control over daily activities. The activities were varied, meaningful and adapted to people's interests, while staff respected decisions not to take part.
“People took part in activities that encouraged social involvement and wellbeing and had choice and control over what they wanted to do each day.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff described a thorough induction, regular supervision and opportunities to develop their skills. Relatives and professionals said staff understood people's needs.
“Staff spoke very positively about their induction.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome decision-making records were identical, used another person's name, or did not show the person's views or the views of relatives, social workers or advocates. This led inspectors to recommend that the provider update its practice.
“There was no evidence to demonstrate that the person's views and those involved in their care such as relatives or social workers had been taken into consideration.” from the report
Incomplete care and emergency records
needs fixingSome care plans were incomplete or out of date. Emergency evacuation plans did not contain enough person-centred information, and fire drill records did not show that regular drills had taken place.
“PEEP's did not have photos of people, which would make identifying them difficult for emergency professionals.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not identify several recording problems. The home also could not show that feedback from surveys had been analysed, acted on or shared.
“The provider had not ensured good governance had been maintained.” from the report
Training records
needs fixingStaff and relatives said training was effective, but the written records did not clearly show what training had been completed or when it needed review.
“There was a lack of written records to show this.” from the report
- 01What has been changed in the mental capacity records so they clearly show each person's views and the views of relatives, social workers or advocates?
- 02How are personal emergency evacuation plans now made specific to each person, including their communication and behaviour needs?
- 03How do you now record fire drills and check that the records are complete and up to date?
- 04How can I see evidence that staff training is current, including renewal dates and completed induction training?
- 05How are feedback and survey results analysed, acted on and shared with people and relatives?
This was an announced inspection covering all five key questions and included observations, discussions with people and others, and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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 Woodcote
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.