CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodland Court Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, and inspectors found systems to protect them from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, risk assessments, medicines, recruitment and infection control were all found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective checks on areas such as medicines, fire safety, infection control and maintenance. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive, although some relatives were unsure who the registered manager was.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Woodland Court Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found people safe, medicines managed well and approachable leadership, but some relatives wanted better communication.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 22 June 2022. One inspector visited the home, and an expert by experience spoke with people and relatives by telephone. Inspectors also spoke with staff and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safeguarding and emergency arrangements, safe medicine systems and effective infection control. People were observed receiving kind, person-centred support from staff who knew them well.
Some relatives said communication about care plans could be better. The inspection did not assess Effective, Caring or Responsive. Those ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were used when calculating the overall rating, which remained Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“People felt safe. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors observed that staff were not rushed and responded promptly to requests for help. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicine records showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and there were systems for ordering and checking medicines.
“Medicine administration records (MARs) confirmed people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff described managers as available and approachable. The home used audits and meetings to monitor care and identify actions.
“Most staff we spoke with told us management were approachable and that they operated an open-door policy.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will I be involved?
- 02How will you keep me informed if my relative's health, medicines or care needs change?
- 03What staffing levels will be in place for my relative's particular needs, including times when two staff are required?
- 04How do you check that medicines are given correctly and that any problems are acted on?
- 05Who should I contact if I have a concern, and how will you keep me updated about the response?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Woodland Court Residential Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and checks needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over 7 and 8 November 2019. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, supported to make choices and treated with kindness and respect.
Care was personalised, with activities each day and good support for food, healthcare and communication. The home had a stable staff team and an open management style.
There were some shortfalls. Some falls risk records were not updated, emergency lighting checks were not being done monthly, some recruitment files had gaps, and some audits did not show whether actions had been completed. The provider took action on these issues during or after the inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and individual choices. Staff knew people's needs and supported their independence.
“People experienced care that was personalised, and care plans contained detailed daily routines specific to each person.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
People could take part in varied activities every day, including at weekends. Activities were adapted to people's interests and could be taken to people in their rooms.
“The home provided a range of activities enabling people to live fulfilled lives.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
“We saw a warm and caring approach by staff with positive and kind interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were offered choices and could have food and drinks when they wanted. The home worked with healthcare professionals when people's needs changed.
“People were encouraged to maintain a healthy, balanced diet, based on their individual needs and could access food and drink when they wanted to.” from the report
Visible management
The manager was described as approachable and involved in the home. Staff, people and relatives were encouraged to raise ideas or concerns.
“The service was well-led by a management team whose passion and drive to deliver a good service, leading by example, was evident.” from the report
Falls records
needs fixingSome mobility and falls risk assessments and care plans had not been updated after falls to show what steps had been taken. The provider said it would address this.
“However, risk assessments and care plans relating to mobility and falls had not always been updated to establish what measures had been implemented, if any, following a fall to reduce or manage the risk.” from the report
Emergency lighting checks
needs fixingMonthly emergency lighting tests were not being completed at the inspection. The provider took immediate action and introduced a process for monthly testing.
“However, the emergency lighting tests were not being completed monthly at time of the inspection.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome staff recruitment files had gaps in employment histories. The missing information was gathered after the inspection and a new monitoring form was introduced.
“However, we found for some of the recruitment files reviewed that there were gaps in the employment histories.” from the report
Audit follow-up
needs fixingSome quality audits did not record whether identified actions had been completed. The provider later supplied evidence that the actions had been completed.
“However, some of the quality assurance audits were not consistently effective in monitoring the quality of care provided.” from the report
Bedroom privacy
minorOn one occasion, a person entered another person's bedroom before staff could stop them. The manager said this was unusual and linked to increased confusion caused by a urinary tract infection.
“We observed two occasions where people were confused about which room was their bedroom and attempted to enter other people's bedrooms.” from the report
- 01How do you now update falls risk assessments and care plans after someone has a fall?
- 02Can you show how monthly emergency lighting tests are recorded and followed up?
- 03How do you check that all staff recruitment files contain complete employment histories?
- 04How do your quality audits show that identified actions have been completed?
- 05How do staff protect residents' privacy when someone is confused about which bedroom is theirs?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and reviewed care, accommodation, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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 Woodland Court Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woodland Court Residential Home →
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woodland Court Residential Home →
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 January 2016.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.