CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodgrange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and medicines and individual risks were managed safely. Inspectors found shortcomings in kitchen cleanliness and hand hygiene during mealtime support.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not separately rated in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors observed caring and dignified support with meals, and relatives spoke positively about staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not separately rated in this inspection. Care plans considered people's individual needs, preferences, religion, culture and dietary requirements.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as open and focused on positive outcomes. Quality systems were in place, but environmental audits had not always found problems with cleaning.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Woodgrange was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring support but gaps in kitchen cleaning and hand hygiene.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 and 13 July 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff supported people with medicines, food and drink, and choking risks were assessed. Visitors were welcomed, and relatives described staff as friendly and helpful.
Inspectors found some infection control problems. Parts of the kitchen were dirty, water outlets had limescale, protective kitchen clothing was dirty, and staff did not always clean their hands between helping different people to eat. The home acted immediately on some of these issues and said it would improve checks.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe and could raise concerns. Safeguarding systems and staff training were in place.
“People using the service and their relatives, told us they felt safe and able to raise concerns.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely and found that records were accurate and consistent.
“People received their medicines as prescribed. We observed safe medicine administrations during the inspection” from the report
Support with dietary risks
The home assessed choking and swallowing risks, followed specialist advice and recorded suitable modified meals in care plans.
“The meals served were appropriate for people's needs. This reduced the risk of people receiving the wrong type of food.” from the report
Welcoming visits
Visitors were able to come throughout the day. Relatives described staff as friendly and helpful.
“We observed visitors entering the home throughout the day and there was a receptionist available to greet people” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found managers and staff focused on positive outcomes, with regular meetings and support for staff.
“The registered manager and regional director demonstrated they were very focused on meeting positive outcomes for people.” from the report
Kitchen cleanliness
needs fixingSome kitchen areas were dirty, including behind a fridge and on top of an oven. Water outlets also had limescale. The home responded by adding checks and cleaning routines.
“However, we found some areas of the kitchen to be dirty, such as behind a fridge and on the top of an oven” from the report
Hand hygiene
needs fixingStaff did not always wash or sanitise their hands before moving from helping one person to another during meals.
“Care staff supporting people to eat their meals in a caring and person-centred way, but they did not always wash or sanitise their hands” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingEnvironmental audits had not identified the kitchen cleaning gaps. Managers said they would increase environmental monitoring.
“However, environmental audits had not always been effective. For example, kitchen audits had not identified gaps in the cleaning routine.” from the report
Mixed views on staffing
minorSome staff and relatives raised concerns about staffing levels. Inspectors observed enough staff to meet people's needs during the visit, and the home said recruitment challenges had occurred earlier in the year.
“We received mixed feedback from staff and relatives of people using the service regarding staffing levels.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to kitchen cleaning and limescale checks since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff wash or sanitise their hands between helping different people with meals?
- 03How are staffing levels calculated on each shift, especially at mealtimes?
- 04What changes were made after the review of choking risks and specialised dietary requirements?
- 05What is the current position of the separate CQC investigation mentioned in the report?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control and choking risks; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 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.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff feeling rushed at busy mealtimes.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 8 and 9 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, received appropriate care and medicines, and had access to healthcare and suitable food.
People were treated with kindness and dignity. Their care plans reflected their preferences, communication needs, hobbies and end of life wishes. Inspectors also found an open culture, regular quality checks and strong support from the management team.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 27 July 2017. Some staff said they felt rushed and did not always have enough time during busy mealtimes. The manager took immediate action to arrange extra support at those times.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, used their preferred names and protected their dignity and privacy. Relatives also described staff as kind and respectful.
“People continued to be cared for by staff who were kind, caring and knew people well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, communication needs and choices. Staff supported people to maintain hobbies, relationships and faith.
“People had individualised care plans, which detailed the care and support people wanted and needed.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Risks were identified and reviewed, accidents and incidents were analysed, and medicines were stored and administered safely.
“Medicines were managed safely and were stored in a clean, organised environment.” from the report
Good leadership and improvement
Inspectors found clear leadership, regular meetings and robust systems for monitoring quality and acting on feedback.
“There was an open, positive culture in the service and staff were passionate about achieving good outcomes for people.” from the report
Support at the end of life
People's end of life wishes were recorded, and staff had training and experience to provide this support.
“People's end of life wishes were recorded and advanced care plans had been developed in line with these.” from the report
Staff felt rushed at mealtimes
needs fixingSome staff working with people who had residential care needs said they did not have enough time, especially during meals. The manager took immediate action to provide extra support at busy times.
“Some staff working with people who have residential care needs felt rushed and did not have enough time, especially during mealtimes.” from the report
Weekly activity planner requested
minorPeople asked for a weekly activity planner they could look at themselves. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“During the inspection people expressed a wish to receive a weekly activity planner for their own perusal.” from the report
- 01What extra staffing is now in place during busy mealtimes, and how do you check that people are not rushed?
- 02Has the weekly activity planner been introduced, and how can residents choose activities?
- 03How are changes in people's needs identified and reflected in their care plans?
- 04How are relatives involved in best-interest decisions when someone cannot make a particular decision?
- 05How are complaints and feedback recorded, investigated and used to improve the home?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including care and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Woodgrange
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.