CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodland View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Care plans and risk assessments were up to date and regularly reviewed. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had oversight of audits, incidents and quality checks. Relatives and staff said management was approachable and that concerns were listened to.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, well-managed care, with some minor improvements made during or after the visit.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 and 26 February 2021. Two inspectors spoke with relatives and staff and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was enough to meet people's needs, and infection control arrangements were in place.
This was a focused inspection because concerns had been raised about safety, risk management and infection control. The other three areas were not inspected, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Risks were reviewed
Care plans and risk assessments covered areas such as falls, nutrition, pressure ulcers and COVID-19. The home used incident patterns to make changes, including extra falls-prevention support.
“People had up-to-date care plans and risk assessments which were regularly reviewed and audited.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored securely, records were completed correctly and staff gave people enough time to take their medicines.
“Medicines were managed safely and were administered respectfully allowing people the time they needed to take their medicines.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw call bells being answered and found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. An extra staff member had been recruited for busy breakfast periods.
“At this inspection, we observed call bells were answered and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely.” from the report
Open management
Relatives described management as accessible, and staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns.
“The registered manager was open and transparent, and people's relatives told us they found them welcoming and accessible.” from the report
Family communication
The home kept relatives updated during the pandemic by email or telephone. People could still share their views when group meetings were not possible.
“People's relatives told us they received regular updates from the service.” from the report
PPE areas needed improvement
minorInspectors recommended improvements to the areas used for putting on and removing PPE, and to PPE storage. The manager completed these actions straight away.
“We made some recommendations relating to PPE 'donning and doffing' areas and the storage of PPE which the registered manager completed straight away.” from the report
Cleaning issue in dementia unit
minorThe home was generally clean, but furniture and carpets in the specialist dementia unit were stained. Deep cleaning was completed promptly after the inspection.
“Woodland View was clean and hygienic throughout, except for staining to furniture and carpets in the specialist dementia unit.” from the report
Communication was not always good
minorOne staff member said information did not always move up to the manager effectively, although they said the manager listened when approached directly.
“I do feel that sometimes [the registered manager] isn't aware of everything so communication going up the line is not very good all the time.” from the report
Fire extinguisher servicing was overdue
minorFire extinguisher servicing had been delayed during a COVID-19 outbreak. A plan was in place and the checks were completed after the inspection visit.
“Whilst the service of fire extinguishers was overdue, there was a plan in place for re-booking servicing and checks” from the report
- 01How are you keeping care plans and risk assessments up to date for my relative?
- 02What changes were made to the PPE areas and storage after the inspection?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain enough during busy periods or staff shortages?
- 04How do staff share concerns with management, and how do you make sure communication does not get missed?
- 05What are the current ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected in this report?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 March 2021 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, June 2019
Woodland View was rated Requires Improvement because staffing, risk checks and management oversight were not consistently strong enough, although care was kind and effective.
Inspectors visited on 26 and 28 March 2019. One visit was unannounced and the return visit was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, observed care, and checked records, medicines, risks, complaints and quality checks.
People were generally treated kindly and with respect. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and independence, helped with food and healthcare, and provided activities. Relatives also praised the friendly atmosphere and end-of-life care.
The main problems were staffing levels and deployment. People sometimes waited for help, and inspectors saw that staff were too busy to monitor everyone or spend time talking with them. Some safety risks were not identified or managed well, and quality checks had not found these problems. The overall rating and the Safe and Well-led ratings were Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and friendly. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and protecting people's dignity.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff noticed changes in people's health, contacted healthcare professionals when needed and followed their advice.
“Referrals to health care professionals were made in a timely manner and recommendations they made were followed by staff.” from the report
Food and drink
People had choices at mealtimes, snacks and drinks throughout the day and night, and specialist dietary advice was followed.
“People were complimentary about the meals provided.” from the report
Personalised activities and choices
Care plans recorded people's preferences, interests and routines. People could choose activities and how they spent their time.
“People were offered a wide range of choices such as when to go to bed and get up, what to wear, what activities to take part in and where they wanted to spend the day.” from the report
Compassionate end-of-life support
Relatives praised the support given at the end of people's lives, including the involvement of external palliative care professionals.
“Relatives praised the compassionate, caring support people received at the end of their life.” from the report
Staffing and delays
seriousStaff numbers and deployment did not always keep people safe or meet their needs. On the dementia unit, people were sometimes left without enough observation or interaction, and inspectors had to call staff for assistance.
“The numbers and deployment of staff did not consistently support people to stay safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Risk management
seriousSome risks were not fully identified, assessed or reviewed. Inspectors found that a safety measure for a hot food container was not always followed, and equipment checks had missed worn parts on walking frames.
“Not all risks to people had been identified, assessed and / or, effectively reviewed to check that staff could take the required action in the risk assessment, to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Weak quality oversight
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not reliably identified safety and staffing problems. Inspectors also found that frequent management changes affected the consistency of improvements.
“Further improvements were needed to ensure all potential risks were being identified and effectively acted on by the service's own quality monitoring checks.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each unit on every shift, and what happens when people need two staff or someone is absent?
- 02What specific changes have been made on the dementia unit so people are not left without enough observation or interaction?
- 03How are individual risks now reviewed, including risks from hot food containers, falls, choking and pressure ulcers?
- 04How are worn or unsafe parts on walking frames and other equipment checked and replaced?
- 05How will the home make sure improvements continue when management changes?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good in the report published on 10 June 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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 View
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 November 2015.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.