CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodham House Stanstead
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing levels were enough, medicines were managed safely and infection control arrangements were adequate.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home had not always recorded best-interests decisions, and many staff had not received positive behaviour support training. Some fire safety issues and improvements to the environment also needed action.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report includes positive feedback that staff treated people well and supported their choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says people's needs, preferences and cultural needs were considered in their care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found that the home was consistently managed, sought feedback and worked with health and social care professionals to review people's care.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring support, but the service was not always effective.
This was a focused inspection on 14 and 19 April 2023. It was prompted partly by a serious injury after an incident, but the inspection did not examine what happened. Inspectors looked mainly at whether people were protected from harm, and also checked infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were managed well. People said they felt safe, and staff understood their responsibilities.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement, down from Good at the last inspection. Some best-interests decisions had not been recorded, many staff had not received positive behaviour support training, and some fire safety issues and environmental improvements were still outstanding. The overall rating remained Good, with the home asked to improve these areas.
Managing risks
Risks to people's health and safety were identified, reviewed and managed. Staff understood the risks and what they needed to do.
“Risks to people's health and wellbeing were managed well and people were included in the risk management processes.” from the report
Medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent to support people with medicines. The registered manager carried out regular checks and investigated issues promptly.
“People's medicines were well managed. Staff who supported people to take their medicines had completed appropriate training and their competency had been assessed.” from the report
Kind and person-centred support
People said staff were kind and helped them take part in activities and go out. Staff supported people's choices and cultural needs.
“The staff are very kind and support me to go out to my classes or out for a meal when I want.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals to review care and support. Hospital passports and health guidelines were in place.
“The service regularly worked in partnership with other health and social care professionals to ensure people received ongoing support to meet their needs.” from the report
Positive behaviour support training
needs fixingMany staff had not received training in positive behaviour support, even though this was a key need for people using the home. The report recommends getting advice about specialised training.
“However, many staff had not received positive behaviour support training which is a key need for people who use this service.” from the report
Recording best-interests decisions
needs fixingSome temporary restrictions had been used in people's best interests, but the process had not always been recorded. The manager said the records would be updated, and later confirmed this had happened.
“The provider was not always working within the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Fire safety actions
seriousA fire risk assessment had identified several fire safety issues that had not yet been remedied. The provider gave inspectors an action plan.
“The provider had a fire risk assessment conducted by a qualified fire risk assessor which had identified several fire safety issues which had not been remedied.” from the report
Home environment
minorMost people had not been helped to personalise their rooms, and communal areas needed redecoration. One person said their room walls did not look very nice.
“Most people had not been supported to personalise their rooms and the communal areas needed re-decoration.” from the report
- 01What positive behaviour support training has each member of staff now completed?
- 02How are best-interests decisions recorded, and can families see the relevant records where appropriate?
- 03Which fire safety issues were identified, and have all of them now been remedied?
- 04What is the timetable for redecorating communal areas and helping people personalise their rooms?
- 05What learning or changes have followed the serious injury incident mentioned in the report?
This was a focused inspection mainly of Safe, Effective and Well-led; the circumstances of the serious injury were not examined, and the other areas were not inspected during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 June 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, April 2020
Woodham House Stanstead is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with two small improvements made during the inspection.
The inspection took place on 26 and 27 February 2020. One inspector spoke with four people, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files, policies and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, people's health, food, communication and complaints were managed well.
The home supported people to make choices, build independence, take part in activities and keep important relationships. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 1 September 2017.
People felt safe
Risks to people's health and safety were identified and reviewed. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to respond to concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe using the service.” from the report
Support for independence
The home helped people learn daily living skills, make choices and work towards more independent living.
“The service focused on enabling people to be more independent and learn daily living skills.” from the report
Personalised communication
Care plans included detailed information about how people communicated and what support helped them understand and make choices.
“Support plans contained detailed guidance from speech and language therapists so staff could understand people's communication preferences better.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals and kept them informed about people's needs and progress.
“The service worked with a range of health and social care professionals to ensure people's needs continued to be met.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
needs fixingStaff had medicine training, but the home was not carrying out practical competency checks at the time of the inspection. The manager started these assessments for all staff after this was raised.
“However, at the time of the inspection the service was not conducting competency assessments to ensure staff had the practical skills to manage people's medicines.” from the report
Shift handovers
needs fixingStaff were not recording shift handovers, creating a risk that important information might not be passed on. The manager introduced a shift plan during the inspection.
“At the time of our inspection staff were not recording shift handovers which meant there was a risk that important information may not be passed between staff.” from the report
- 01Are medicine competency assessments now completed for every staff member who supports people with medicines, and how often are they checked?
- 02How is the new shift plan used to make sure important information is passed between staff?
- 03How are people supported to develop daily living skills and move towards more independent living?
- 04How are people's communication preferences and cultural or religious needs kept up to date in their care plans?
- 05How does the home involve people in decisions about menus, activities and the running of the home?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, and the previous Good ratings were reviewed and remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 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 Woodham House Stanstead
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
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.