CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodland Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were administered safely and staff understood safeguarding procedures. Some people said they occasionally waited longer for their call bell to be answered, and there was malodour in some areas.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and staff were trained and supported. Inspectors found inconsistent records about some DoLS applications and heard that staff had not always requested help promptly when there were problems providing mouth care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring, polite and respectful. Staff involved people in decisions, supported independence and protected privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were offered activities, trips, religious services and one-to-one support. Inspectors said care plans were detailed but needed further checking to keep them accurate.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, good communication and systems for checking quality and safety. The management team had identified some areas needing improvement and had plans to act.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, but some records and mouth care needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 9 January 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also checked care plans, daily records, medicines, safety arrangements and the home's quality checks.
People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were described as kind, respectful and supportive. Inspectors found that people received their medicines, food, drinks and healthcare, and were offered activities and support to remain independent.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection published in July 2016. The report also identified some issues that needed attention, including malodour, inconsistent records and delays in seeking help with mouth care.
People felt safe
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed. People said they felt safe and staff understood how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
“People were safe living in the service. Risks had been identified and people told us they felt safe and well looked after.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Staff supported people to make choices, stay independent and maintain their dignity.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Food and drink
People were offered regular drinks and snacks and could give views on menus. The cook knew people's preferences and dietary needs.
“People were offered drinks and snacks frequently. People enjoyed the food and were given the opportunity to have input into the menus.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
The home offered varied activities, trips and entertainment. Staff also provided one-to-one activities for people who stayed in their rooms or were cared for in bed.
“People were enabled to follow a variety of interests and activities.” from the report
Approachable management
The management team supported staff and maintained systems for monitoring care, medicines and safety. People and staff were able to raise concerns.
“The registered manager was approachable and available to people and staff.” from the report
Malodour in some areas
minorAlthough inspectors found the home appeared clean, they noticed unpleasant smells in some areas. The provider had identified this and planned deep cleaning and refurbishment.
“Although the home appeared to be kept clean, there was malodour in some areas.” from the report
Inconsistent records
needs fixingSome records did not consistently reflect people's mental capacity, DoLS applications or pressure care needs. Inspectors said further checking was needed.
“Some records were inconsistent, as some people had a DoLS application applied for when they were deemed to have capacity, and were not being deprived of their liberty.” from the report
Mouth care follow-up
needs fixingA healthcare professional said staff had not always asked for support promptly when they had problems providing mouth care. The report says this area still required action.
“Another healthcare professional did say they felt staff had not always requested support promptly when encountering problems with delivering mouth care to some people.” from the report
Care plans needed checking
needs fixingCare plans were detailed and reviewed, but inspectors found they were not always accurate throughout. This included information about mental capacity and pressure care.
“Each care plan was regularly reviewed, however further checking was needed to ensure care plans remained accurate throughout.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to remove the malodour identified in some areas?
- 02How do you now check that care plans accurately record mental capacity and pressure care needs?
- 03How do you make sure people receive mouth care promptly and that staff seek professional help when needed?
- 04What communal dining and bathroom facilities are currently available, and what improvements were made after the inspection?
- 05How are call bell response times monitored, given that some people said they occasionally had to wait?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and both the premises and the care provided were looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 January 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 Woodland Care Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 October 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.