CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodham House Bradgate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were in place, including safe admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was a targeted inspection on 4 February 2022. It was carried out because of COVID-19 outbreaks and focused on infection prevention and control, as well as any staffing pressures linked to the pandemic.
Inspectors found good infection control arrangements. Visitors were asked to test, wear appropriate protective equipment and follow hand hygiene procedures. The home had enough protective equipment, regular testing, staff training and checks on how equipment was used.
The home was clean and hygienic. Inspectors were assured that people were admitted safely, visits were supported, infection outbreaks could be managed and the infection control policy was up to date. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
Visitors were asked to test for COVID-19, use protective equipment and follow hand hygiene procedures before entering.
“The provider had adapted the visitors' protocol as government guidelines changed.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
There was an adequate supply of protective equipment. Staff received ongoing infection control training and checks were made on its use.
“The provider ensured there was an adequate supply of PPE and staff received ongoing infection control and prevention training.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was kept clean, with regular checks and audits to maintain hygiene standards.
“The service was kept clean and hygienic. There were regular checks and audits of the service to ensure high standards of hygiene were maintained.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans for self-isolation, safe community access and managing the risks linked to the pandemic.
“The provider had developed a range of risk assessments and contingency plans to mitigate the risks associated with the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently tested, protected and supported to follow hygiene procedures?
- 02How do you make sure staff use protective equipment correctly and keep their infection control training up to date?
- 03What plans are in place if there is an infection outbreak or someone needs to self-isolate?
- 04How would staffing pressures affect the care and support provided to people living here?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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, June 2021
Woodham House Bradgate rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but the home's leadership required improvement.
This was the home's first inspection. One inspector visited on 21 April and 5 May 2021. They spoke with a person using the service, managers, support workers and health professionals. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, policies and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough staff, good infection control, suitable care planning and positive relationships between people and staff. People were supported with health care, activities, communication and contact with their families.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. The provider had not always met its notification duties, and a relative had not initially received a formal report after a person went missing. Inspectors also made recommendations about PRN medicines, balanced diets and supporting daily living skills. They found no evidence that people remained at ongoing risk from the missing person incident.
Enough staff
Inspectors found two staff on duty at all times and said staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs safely.
“There were enough staff on duty at all times to ensure people's needs were safely met.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff. Inspectors saw that staff understood people's needs and preferences and treated them with dignity.
“There was a stable staff team who understood people's needs and preferences well.” from the report
Activities and communication
People were offered activities during lockdown and were supported to communicate in ways suited to them and to keep in touch with family and friends.
“Care and support plans and risk assessments were available in accessible formats and with pictures where necessary to help people understand them better.” from the report
Missing person incident
seriousA person who needed one-to-one support left the home unattended. The incident was under a safeguarding investigation, although inspectors found no evidence of an ongoing risk during the inspection.
“Despite these procedures there had been a missing person incident before our inspection as one person who required one-to-one support left the service unattended.” from the report
PRN medicine instructions
needs fixingDirections for some medicines given when needed were not clear enough. Staff were not always told how to judge whether to give one or two tablets.
“PRN (when required) medicines did not always have clear guidance for staff to ensure they would be given in the right circumstances.” from the report
Regulatory notifications
needs fixingThe provider had not always told the CQC about changes and events it was required to report. The manager submitted one missing notification after inspectors raised it.
“The provider did not always understand all their regulatory responsibilities.” from the report
Balanced diet
needs fixingTwo relatives were concerned that people had gained weight. The manager made a dietitian referral after inspectors raised concerns about healthy food choices and portion control.
“However, people were not always being supported to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Daily living skills
minorCare plans did not give enough detail about what people could do for themselves, such as preparing meals. This could mean staff did too much for people.
“There was a risk that staff would do all this for people and potentially lead to the loss of skills.” from the report
- 01What has changed in your process for notifying the CQC about incidents, changes to the service and deprivation of liberty authorisations?
- 02What action has been taken following the missing person incident, and how will you keep my relative safe if they need one-to-one support?
- 03How are PRN medicines managed now, and do the instructions clearly explain when to give each dose?
- 04What support will my relative receive to maintain a healthy weight and balanced diet?
- 05How do care plans record and support each person's daily living skills and personal care preferences?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the home environment, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Woodham House Bradgate
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2021GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 March 2018.
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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.