CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodhouse
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm. Risks, safeguarding, staffing, medicines, infection control and the environment were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report nevertheless describes kind, compassionate and person-centred care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report describes activities, care and support tailored to people's interests and needs.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptional leadership, a strong person-centred culture and robust systems for checking quality and driving improvement.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, highly person-centred care and outstanding leadership, but noted the home was larger than ideal.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 25 and 26 April 2023. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. Records about care, medicines, staffing, recruitment, safety and management were also checked.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and Well-led was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines management, good safeguarding arrangements and a clean, well-maintained environment.
People were supported to make choices, build skills and take part in activities that mattered to them. Inspectors found kind care, strong family involvement and management that actively looked for ways to improve people's lives.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection, so the overall Good rating does not mean all five areas were newly assessed.
Person-centred support
Staff focused on what people could do and supported them to gain skills, pursue interests and live the life they wanted.
“People were completely at the heart of the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team created an open culture and encouraged staff to contribute ideas and develop their skills.
“There was strong leadership in the home.” from the report
Quality improvement
The home had regular checks, staff meetings and reviews to identify learning and improve care.
“There were robust quality assurance processes in place that drove improvement.” from the report
Size of the home
minorThe home accommodated more people than inspectors considered optimum and was larger than a domestic property. This was partly reduced by people having their own flats or apartments and daily staff allocation.
“However, the home accommodated more people than would be the optimum and was larger in scale than a domestic property.” from the report
- 01How would staff support my relative's individual goals, interests and preferred activities?
- 02How would staff manage my relative's specific risks while still promoting independence?
- 03How many staff would normally be available for my relative, and how would any one-to-one support be arranged?
- 04How are medicines reviewed, including medicines used only when needed and the prevention of over-medication?
- 05How would my relative's experience be affected by the home's size, and how would their own flat or apartment be used to support privacy and independence?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection published on 21 November 2021. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 May 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some issues about the building and records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 and 17 October 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, health professionals and a relative. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, training information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, received their medicines safely, and had enough staff to support them. Staff understood people's needs and supported choice, independence and access to activities.
Care was tailored to individuals. People were supported to communicate, maintain relationships and use local services. The inspection also considered restrictive practices. These were used as a last resort and in a person-centred way, following positive behaviour support principles.
The home was larger than the size recommended in best-practice guidance, although people had their own flats or apartments. Inspectors also found some issues with the environment and records. The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in April 2017.
Person-centred support
Support was planned around each person's needs, choices and independence. People were supported in a way that promoted an ordinary life.
“People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.” from the report
Choice and dignity
Staff involved people in daily decisions and respected their privacy. People could have time alone and were encouraged to do things for themselves.
“People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.” from the report
Community activities
People took part in activities based on their interests, both at home and in the community. Inspectors found that people were protected from social isolation.
“People were protected from social isolation and were supported to access the local community on a regular basis.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine systems were checked regularly. Staff were trained and their competence was checked each year.
“People's medicines were managed safely. Checks were completed regularly on the systems that were in place to ensure people received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Larger than recommended setting
minorThe home was larger than the size considered ideal under the guidance used by inspectors. Having separate flats or apartments helped reduce the impact.
“However, the home accommodated more people than would be the optimum and was larger in scale than a domestic property.” from the report
Some areas felt institutional
minorThe ground-floor corridor did not feel homely because of staff notices and information. Staff had started removing these and planning improvements during the inspection.
“There were notice boards containing policies and procedures and other staff information which detracted from it being people's home.” from the report
Health record omission
needs fixingOne person's medical condition was not recorded in their documentation. This was corrected by the second day, and inspectors said the impact had been minimal because staff understood the condition.
“One person had a medical condition that had not been reflected in the person's documentation.” from the report
Items left in a bathroom
minorToiletries and a topical cream were found in a bathroom on the first day. Staff removed them and were reminded about safe storage and infection risks.
“Some toiletries and a topical cream were found in a bathroom on the first day.” from the report
- 01How are you making the ground-floor corridor feel more like people's home, and what improvements have been completed since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that every person's medical conditions and health needs are recorded accurately in their care plan?
- 03What restrictive interventions might be used, and how do you make sure they are only used as a last resort and reviewed regularly?
- 04How are people's preferences for activities, meals, communication and independence recorded and updated?
- 05How do you check that the staffing arrangements provide the one-to-one or two-to-one support identified for each person?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five rating areas, including the premises and care provided, and also considering restrictive intervention practices. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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 Woodhouse
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- November 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 2010.
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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.