CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodhouse Hall
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staffing, recruitment, safeguarding and infection control were managed safely. Inspectors found some maintenance, risk assessment and medicine recording issues, which the manager said would be addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Caring. Inspectors did report that people were treated with dignity and respect.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating for Responsive. Inspectors found personalised care, activities and support for people's goals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable, supportive and responsive. However, some quality audits had not identified problems quickly enough, so the provider was asked to review its quality assurance processes.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found respectful, safe care, but some medicine records, maintenance checks and quality audits needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced. One inspector and an Expert by Experience visited on 13 December 2023. They spoke with people, relatives, advocates, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care and checked care plans, risk records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe was rated Good and well-led was rated Good. People were treated with dignity, supported to make choices and helped to take part in activities and learn new skills.
Inspectors found some safety and maintenance issues, including a missing window restrictor and gaps in some medicine guidance and records. The manager acted on these during the inspection. The home was asked to improve its quality checks because audits had not found all the problems.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, take positive risks and live as independently as possible. Inspectors found that restrictions were not used unnecessarily.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible” from the report
Medicine management
Inspectors found no medicine errors and saw regular medicine reviews. Staff competency was checked regularly.
“Overall, people's medication was well managed and we did not found any medication errors.” from the report
Responsive management
The manager acted promptly when inspectors raised issues and there were plans to develop care planning and opportunities for people.
“The manager was proactive during the inspection and responsive in acting on the issues identified.” from the report
Premises safety
seriousInspectors found some maintenance issues, including a window restrictor that was not in place. These issues were addressed on the day of the inspection.
“Some areas of the home required maintenance and we found one window restrictor was not in place.” from the report
Medicine records and guidance
needs fixingSome guidance for medicines taken when needed was not printed or easy for staff to access. Checks on one person's self-administered medicine had also not been recorded.
“we also found examples were this had not been printed out and was not easily accessible to staff” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingAudits had not always identified or dealt with issues promptly. For example, regular checks had not found the missing window restrictor or gaps in medicine guidance.
“We recommend the provider reviews their quality assurance processes to ensure these are effective in identifying and addressing areas for improvement.” from the report
Risk assessments
needs fixingA few risk assessments needed review, although staff could explain the measures being used. The manager said the new electronic system would be used to keep records aligned with the care provided.
“However, we found a few examples were some risk assessments required review” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure window restrictors and other maintenance checks are safe and effective?
- 02How do you make sure 'as and when' medicine guidance is printed, available to staff and kept up to date?
- 03How are checks on medicines managed by people themselves recorded?
- 04How have the new electronic care plans and risk assessments been reviewed to make sure they match people's current needs?
- 05What changes have you made to quality audits since inspectors found they had not identified some problems?
This inspection focused on applying the Right support, right care, right culture principles and gave ratings for Safe and Well-led only; separate ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2024 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, February 2022
Woodhouse Hall was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors visited on 9 February 2022 after a COVID-19 outbreak. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance and focused on infection prevention and control, as well as any staffing pressures linked to the outbreak.
Inspectors found that visitors' risks had been assessed. Staff used protective equipment correctly, had received relevant training, and were regularly tested and vaccinated. The home also had up-to-date infection control guidance, regular checks, and arrangements for safe visits.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was a targeted visit, not a full assessment of all aspects of care.
Infection control checks
The home carried out regular infection control audits and had an up-to-date policy that followed current guidance.
“Regular Infection prevention control (IPC) audits were undertaken. The home's infection prevention and control policy were up to date and in line with current guidance.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
Staff had protective equipment and training to use it correctly. Inspectors observed staff wearing masks properly.
“Staff had access to supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) and had received training to ensure they used this correctly.” from the report
Visits continued safely
The home assessed visitors' risks and supported visits in line with the guidance in place at the time.
“The provider was facilitating visits for people living in the home in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you manage a new COVID-19 or other infection outbreak now?
- 02How do you check that staff continue to use protective equipment correctly?
- 03How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of illness or infection control measures?
- 04How are visitors checked and supported to visit safely?
- 05How often are infection control audits carried out, and can families see the results?
This was a targeted inspection following a COVID-19 outbreak, focused on infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not provide a full rating of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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.
Every inspection of Woodhouse Hall
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £980 to £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.