CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands Care Home
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and COVID-19 safety measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good practice in preventing infections. The home had visitor checks, cleaning between visits, protective equipment, testing, vaccination access, social distancing measures and safe admission and discharge processes.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection checked infection control arrangements rather than giving a full rating across all areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
The home had a planned visiting process with pre-booking, health checks, testing and cleaning between visits.
“There was a clear pre-booking system and deep cleaning was undertaken between each visit.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors saw staff using the available protective equipment properly and consistently.
“We observed staff wore a full range of PPE appropriately and consistently.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
There was adequate access to testing and vaccination for staff and people using the service.
“There was adequate access and take up of testing and vaccination for staff and people using services.” from the report
Outbreak preparation
Inspectors found that staff training, working practices and staffing arrangements supported infection prevention and outbreak management.
“Staff training, practices and deployment showed the service could prevent transmission of infection and manage any outbreaks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently booked, checked and tested, and how is the visiting area cleaned between visits?
- 02What PPE, testing and vaccination arrangements are currently in place for staff and residents?
- 03How do you safely admit and discharge people, including anyone who may have an infection?
- 04What is your current plan for preventing and managing an infection outbreak?
- 05When was the infection prevention and control policy last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, so the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 April 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, December 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor medicine record and mealtime concerns.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 15 November 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a visiting GP. They observed care and checked care records, medicine systems, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable training, kind care, personalised support and a clear management system.
There were some minor shortfalls. Medicine audits did not cover every part of medicine administration, lunchtime staffing could have been better organised, and some people had dirty nails and stained clothes. The home was also undergoing renovation, and some furnishings and flooring were worn.
People were protected
Safeguarding concerns were reported appropriately, care risks were assessed and accidents and incidents were reviewed.
“People who used the service were protected from the risks of abuse and risks associated with people's care were identified and managed appropriately.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and a homely atmosphere.
“We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained information about people's needs, preferences and communication. They were updated when people's circumstances changed.
“People's care plans were comprehensive and contained all the information that was required to meet their needs effectively.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in a range of activities according to their interests. Their care choices and end of life preferences were recorded.
“People were asked what they wanted to do and people engaged in different activities, depending on their preferences.” from the report
Good management oversight
The management team was visible and approachable. Regular audits, meetings and surveys were used to involve people and identify improvements.
“There was lots of evidence that any actions identified as part of the quality and safety audit system and from people's feedback were addressed effectively and in a timely way.” from the report
Medicine audit checks
needs fixingSome medicine errors were not identified because audits did not cover every aspect of medicine administration. The report says these issues did not affect people and were later fully addressed.
“We saw the medication audits had identified some shortfalls but did not cover all aspects of medication administration, so some errors had not been identified.” from the report
Lunchtime staffing arrangement
needs fixingStaff deployment at lunchtime could have been better. Building work meant one room was unavailable, which made it harder to monitor people and provide support.
“On the day of the inspection the deployment of staff at lunchtime could have been improved.” from the report
Personal appearance
needs fixingSome people had dirty nails and stained clothes, and clothes had not been changed after a meal. The manager said steps would be taken to improve this.
“However, on the day of the inspection we identified some people had dirty nails and stained clothes.” from the report
Worn furnishings during renovation
minorSome flooring and furniture were worn and stained while renovation work was in progress. The report says replacement work was planned.
“The décor of the service was tired, floor coverings and furniture was worn and stained.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to medicine audits after inspectors found that some medicine errors had not been identified?
- 02How are staff deployed at mealtimes now, and how do you make sure people in different rooms receive enough support?
- 03How do you check that people are clean, have clean clothes and are supported to wash their hands after meals?
- 04What renovation work has been completed since the inspection, including replacement flooring and furniture?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and deciding on activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; it used a shorter report format because the overall rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2018 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 Woodlands Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.