CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodland Vale
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were managed through visitor controls, PPE, cleaning, testing, safe admissions, social distancing and updated infection-control policies.
- 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
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements for visitors, PPE and family contact.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 6 November 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control measures as part of a coronavirus-related review.
They found that visitors had to arrange visits, complete health checks and use PPE. Staff followed cleaning routines, had access to PPE and used policies for infection control, coronavirus and safe admissions.
People were supported to keep in touch with family and friends through video calls, phone calls, garden visits and socially distanced visits in a conservatory. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a quality rating.
Visitor checks
Visitors had to arrange visits, provide contact details, complete a health declaration and have their temperature checked before entering.
“All visitors to the service were only allowed to enter if they had arranged their visit and followed the services guidelines and protocols.” from the report
PPE and hygiene
Staff had access to the right PPE. Inspectors found detailed cleaning routines, including frequent cleaning of high-use areas.
“Cleaning regimes were detailed and included ensuring all areas were clean, clutter free and areas of high use such as door handles were wiped clean more than twice daily.” from the report
Family contact
People could keep in touch with family and friends through calls, garden visits and socially distanced visits in a conservatory.
“People had been enabled to stay in contact with family and friends via facetime calls, phone calls, garden visits and socially distancing visits using one conservatory which was pre-bookable” from the report
PPE supplies
Staff said they could get the PPE they needed and that there was no shortage of stock.
“Staff were able to access the right PPE and confirmed there was no shortage of stock.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection-control approach. The report does not explain what specific changes were needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes, if any, were made after inspectors signposted you to resources to develop your infection-control approach?
- 02How are visitors currently checked before entering the home?
- 03How do you make sure PPE supplies remain available for staff and visitors?
- 04How are family visits and other ways of keeping in contact arranged now?
- 05How do you safely admit new people and manage infection testing?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures, with the Safe question inspected but not rated; it did not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 December 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.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Woodland Vale was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a small gap in how covert medicines were agreed.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection. The inspection team observed care, spoke with relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, complaints, accidents, training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect. Care plans were very detailed and activities were tailored to people's interests, including dementia-friendly support.
The home was clean and well maintained. Staffing had improved since the 2016 inspection. Inspectors found medicines were managed safely, but noted that a pharmacist had not yet been involved in decisions about covert medicines.
Detailed care planning
Inspectors found that care plans contained detailed information about people's physical, emotional and social needs. This helped staff provide highly personalised care.
“The standard of care planning was exceptionally high.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them calmly. Inspectors saw kindness, dignity, positive relationships and shared enjoyment.
“All observation showed staff to be kind, respectful and compassionate.” from the report
Dementia-friendly setting
The environment was designed to support independence and wellbeing for people living with dementia. Rooms and shared areas were described as pleasant, clean and well maintained.
“The premises were designed in line with research based best practice in dementia care.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were based on people's interests, memories and abilities. Examples included cinema trips, music, helping in the kitchen and caring for chicks.
“Activities were provided which would help people tap into happy memories.” from the report
Improved staffing
Staffing had been reviewed and increased since the previous inspection. Inspectors saw care interventions being provided in a timely way.
“This inspection found staffing had been reviewed and improved with a fifth member of the staff team on duty throughout the day.” from the report
Covert medicines process
needs fixingSome medicines were given covertly when this was considered in a person's best interests and agreed with a GP. Inspectors noted that the pharmacist had not been involved in those decisions.
“However, to date the pharmacist had not been included in the decision-making process, which would then include their specific knowledge of the medicine.” from the report
Staffing changes
minorStaff said they were concerned that the improved staffing arrangements might be reversed. The manager said staffing would continue to be matched to people's needs.
“Staff expressed concern that the staffing changes might be reversed” from the report
Lasting Power of Attorney records
minorA provider review found that records did not clearly show who held Lasting Power of Attorney in some cases. An action plan was in place to correct this.
“It was not clear from records who had Lasting Power of Attorney in place.” from the report
- 01How many staff are currently on duty during the day, and how do you decide when extra staff are needed?
- 02If a person's medicine is given covertly, how are best-interest decisions made and has a pharmacist been involved?
- 03How do you keep each person's detailed care plan up to date as their needs and interests change?
- 04What action was taken to make Lasting Power of Attorney information clear in people's records?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care home, covering all five CQC questions; the onsite day centre was not part of the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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 Vale
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 November 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.