CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodhorn Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed and reviewed. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were generally managed safely, although some medicine patch records were incomplete.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were supported to make decisions, maintain independence and receive care with dignity and respect. People and relatives gave positive comments about staff's kindness and care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its rating was carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team understood their roles and carried out quality checks. Feedback was gathered, problems were acted on, and staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Woodhorn Park rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with minor gaps in medicine patch records and new-staff induction.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 24 January 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, medicines were generally managed safely, staffing was sufficient, and infection control arrangements were in place. People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and respectful.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement. The provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach of Regulations 9, 10 and 17. Because this was a focused inspection, the overall Good rating also used ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for areas not reviewed this time.
Safe care
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that risks were assessed and managed. Accidents and incidents were investigated, with healthcare support arranged when needed.
“People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Safeguarding incidents were reported to the relevant authorities.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as caring, friendly and respectful. Staff supported people to keep their independence and make choices about their care.
“All the people and relatives we spoke to gave positive comments about the caring nature of the staff.” from the report
People involved in care
Care records included people's wishes, and relatives or advocates were involved when needed. Regular residents' meetings helped the home act on feedback.
“People were supported to make decisions about their care. Care records included detail about how people wished to be cared for.” from the report
Medicine patch records
minorMedicine records were generally accurate, but patch records were not always fully completed. The registered manager acted during the inspection to improve this.
“Medicine patch records were not always completed fully. The registered manager took action to improve this during the inspection.” from the report
New-staff induction
minorSome new staff felt their induction was too short to learn people's routines properly. A buddy system had been introduced to provide extra support.
“Some new staff felt that the induction period was not long enough to get to know people's routines properly.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure medicine patch records are completed fully every time?
- 02How does the buddy system support new staff to learn each person's routines and needs?
- 03What were the ratings for Effective and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
- 04How are residents' feedback and requests recorded and followed up?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels while vacancies are being filled?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over to the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 February 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, March 2022
Woodhorn Park rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind staff but problems with visiting restrictions, records and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection following concerns about visiting restrictions. Inspectors spoke with six people, 11 relatives and eight staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had enough staff and staff were seen responding quickly. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and systems were in place to safeguard people. However, medicines records were not always accurate, some recruitment checks were incomplete, and records did not always show that COVID-19 testing and vaccination checks had been completed.
Visiting rules were more restrictive than government guidance at the start of the inspection. People had not been properly involved in decisions about visits, and some were not supported to maintain family relationships or visit their local community. The home changed its visiting policy during the inspection, but the provider was still in breach of regulations on person-centred care, dignity and respect, and good governance.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw staff respond quickly when support was needed.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs. During the inspection we observed staff to respond quickly when people required support.” from the report
Kind staff
Staff were described as kind, respectful and supportive. People and relatives spoke positively about the caring nature of staff.
“Staff demonstrated kind and caring attitudes in their work.” from the report
Safeguarding
Systems were in place to protect people from abuse. Staff understood how to raise safeguarding concerns.
“Systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to safeguarding.” from the report
Communication
The report records positive feedback from a relative about communication with the home.
“We are kept informed. I think that this is one of the strong points of the home, the communication is very good.” from the report
Visiting restrictions
seriousThe visiting policy was not in line with government guidance at the start of the inspection. Some people were negatively affected and had not been involved in decisions about visiting.
“The providers visiting policy was not in line with government guidance. Additional visiting restrictions had been imposed on people which had not always been assessed on an individual basis.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine records did not always show the exact time medicines were given. Records about refrigerated medicines and as-required medicines also needed improvement.
“MAR's did not document the exact time for the administration of time specific medicines.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe home's audits did not identify problems found by inspectors. The provider's systems did not give effective oversight of quality and safety.
“A range of audits were completed to monitor quality at the service. These audits had not identified the issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
needs fixingSome references did not match application information, and employment gaps had not always been considered. The home manager took immediate action to update records.
“Some information on the reference for one member of staff did not correspond with the information on their application form.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now recorded, including the exact time that time-specific medicines are given?
- 02What visiting rules are currently in place, and how are people and their representatives involved in decisions about visits?
- 03How do you make sure people can maintain important family relationships and visit the local community if they want to?
- 04What checks are now completed on COVID-19 testing, vaccination records and staff recruitment?
- 05What changes have been made to audits and management oversight since the inspection?
This started as a targeted inspection about visiting concerns and was widened to a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not included and no ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 March 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.
Every inspection of Woodhorn Park
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodCaring: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Northumberland
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 £1,190 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.