CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodland Residential Care Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe medicines support, enough staff and effective infection prevention arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so its previous rating was used for the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so its previous rating was used for the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection, so its previous rating was used for the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had effective quality checks, a registered manager was in post and people and staff said management was accessible and supportive. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Woodland Residential Care Home Limited rated Good; inspectors found safe care and improved leadership, with no evidence of harm from the concern that prompted the inspection.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 18 October 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at whether people were safe and whether the home was well-led. They spoke with 16 people, six staff members and the provider, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment checks and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff knew how to keep people safe, medicines were handled safely and there were enough staff. People said they felt safe, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory.
The inspection was prompted by concerns about the safe management of people's skin. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good.
Risk management
Risks linked to mobility, skin integrity, diet and nutrition had been assessed. Staff understood these risks and how to reduce harm.
“The provider assessed risks to people and supported them to lead the lives they wanted whilst keeping the risk of harm to a minimum.” from the report
Medicines support
Staff were trained and checked as competent before giving medicines. Guidance was available for medicines prescribed only when needed.
“Staff members were trained and assessed as competent before supporting people with their medicines.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment checks. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People were safe from the risks of abuse and ill treatment. Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had regular checks on the environment, medicines and care plans. The provider used feedback from people to make changes.
“The provider had effective quality monitoring systems in place.” from the report
Listening to people
People could give feedback regularly, and the home displayed actions taken in response. People felt their views were valued.
“Everyone felt assured their views would be valued and acted on.” from the report
Waiting at busy times
minorOne person said they sometimes had to wait at busier times of day. They said this was not a problem and had never needed to raise it as an issue.
“One person told us they sometimes wait at the busier times of day, but it wasn't a problem and they have never needed to raise it as an issue.” from the report
- 01How are you monitoring people's skin integrity following the concern that prompted this inspection?
- 02What happens if someone needs help during the busier times of day?
- 03How do you check that medicines prescribed when needed are given within the correct maximum daily dose?
- 04How do you use people's monthly feedback to make changes, and can we see recent examples?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not reassessed in this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 November 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection controls, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, arranged testing, managed admissions and followed infection control guidance. Visiting rules were clearly explained, and extra PPE and testing were used during the COVID-19 outbreak.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a new overall rating or ratings for care areas such as caring, effective or responsive care.
PPE and infection control
Staff used PPE in line with guidance, with extra PPE where infection risks were higher. Inspectors were assured that infection outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Clear visiting arrangements
The home had clear visiting rules and dealt with visitors who did not follow them. Essential care givers were allowed to visit during the outbreak if they followed the required precautions.
“Clear visiting policies were in place and these were clearly communicated to families.” from the report
Safe admissions
New residents needed a negative COVID-19 test before admission and had to isolate in their bedrooms for 14 days.
“People who were admitted to the home were required to have a negative COVID-19 test prior to admission and isolate in their bedrooms for 14 days.” from the report
Audits and improvements
The home carried out infection control audits and acted on issues quickly. Bathrooms and wall coverings had also been replaced to make cleaning easier.
“Effective infection prevention and control audits were undertaken.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting rules, and how would essential care givers be supported to visit during an outbreak?
- 02How do you currently manage COVID-19 or other infection outbreaks, including testing and PPE?
- 03How are new residents supported during the required 14-day bedroom isolation period?
- 04What staffing pressures are you experiencing now, and what measures are in place to prevent them affecting residents?
- 05What infection control improvements have been made since this inspection, and how are your audits checking that they remain effective?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 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 Woodland Residential Care Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woodland Residential Care Home Limited →
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Woodland Residential Care Home Limited →
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 August 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 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.