CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodfield Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm through risk assessments, safeguarding procedures and safety checks. Inspectors also found medicines, staffing, recruitment, visiting and infection control were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was provided with support from healthcare professionals when needed. Staff had induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, choice and lawful consent.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit, so the report does not give a current rating for it.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the current management approach. Audits, action plans and feedback systems were in place, although the provider was still strengthening its oversight and feedback arrangements.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and effective care, with management oversight still being strengthened.
Inspectors visited without warning on 22 and 28 March 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care, toured the building and checked care, medicines, staffing, safety and management records.
The home was warm and friendly. People said they were happy and positive about their care. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines, enough staff, safe recruitment and good infection control. People could receive visitors when they wished.
Care was based on people's needs and choices. Staff received training and supervision. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care. The home followed the Mental Capacity Act and used least restrictive support.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall assessment. The last overall rating was also Good, published in October 2017.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found clear care plans and risk assessments, with staff following safeguarding and risk management procedures.
“People were kept safe from the risk of abuse and avoidable harm because the provider's safeguarding and risk management policies and procedures were understood and followed by management and staff.” from the report
Reliable medicines support
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely. Storage, records, as-required medicine guidance and staff competency checks were in place.
“Medicine administration records showed people received their medicines as required.” from the report
Food and personal choice
People enjoyed the meals and could choose where to eat. Staff supported people sensitively and offered suitable equipment to help them remain independent.
“The food looked appetising and was served in a timely manner. There was little wastage and people said they enjoyed their food.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
People, relatives and staff described the home as friendly and settled under the current management. Staff were described as visible, supportive and open to suggestions.
“There was a warm and friendly atmosphere within the home.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home reviewed falls and other incidents. It used this information to identify trends and arrange equipment or specialist referrals where needed.
“Analysis of falls and incidents were undertaken to assist the management team to identify, for example, trends and put measures in place” from the report
Change in management
minorThe previous registered manager had left and had not completed the cancellation paperwork. A new manager was in post and planned to apply to become registered.
“At the time of our inspection the registered manager had left the service and had not submitted their registration cancellation forms.” from the report
Oversight still developing
needs fixingThe provider was still improving how it analysed audits and checks to oversee the home. This was described as ongoing development rather than a breach.
“The management were working on strengthening the analysis of the audits and checks to enhance their oversight systems.” from the report
Feedback systems recently improved
minorNew satisfaction surveys had been introduced, but the returns still needed to be analysed and any actions reported back to people and relatives.
“They advised that the returns would be analysed, with any actions arising addressed and fed back to people so they knew their comments were valued.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager now applied to become the registered manager, and what is the current management structure?
- 02What changes have been made to strengthen the analysis of audits and checks since the inspection?
- 03What did the latest satisfaction surveys show, and what actions were taken in response?
- 04How has reliance on agency staff changed since the inspection, and are staffing levels still based on people's current needs?
- 05Can you explain how recent falls or incidents were reviewed and what changes were made to reduce future risks?
This was a focused inspection that included infection prevention and control and inspected Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward from the last inspection in 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 2023 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, October 2019
Woodfield Court was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in effectiveness since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, trained staff, personalised care plans and safe medicines systems.
People were treated with dignity and supported to make choices. The home provided activities, outings and support to maintain relationships. It also had systems for complaints, care reviews and quality checks.
The overall rating remained Good. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2017 to Good.
Personalised care
Care plans were based on people's needs, preferences and goals. Staff knew the plans and supported people in the way they wished.
“A care plan and risk assessments had been written from an assessment of the person's needs and was updated as necessary.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff listening to people, offering choices and respecting privacy, dignity and independence.
“People's privacy, support to remain independent and dignity was respected.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had medicines training and competency checks, with guidance for medicines prescribed when needed.
“There were sufficient staff employed to meet the needs of the people living at Woodfield Court.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in activities, outings and visits from a local nursery. Activities were being developed around people's hobbies and interests.
“Activities continued to be developed with the people living at the service so that they could enjoy hobbies and interests at the service while accessing the local community.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home carried out monthly audits, including medicine checks, and used information from audits to improve the service.
“Quality assurance systems were in operation and information gathered from the audits was considered by the manager team and used to improve the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and update my relative's care plan if their needs or preferences change?
- 02How do you make sure staff remain competent to administer medicines, including medicines prescribed when needed?
- 03What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative's hobbies, interests and level of independence?
- 04How would you support my relative if they needed end of life care while living at the home?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or make a complaint, and how are concerns followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the home did not provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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 Woodfield Court
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.