CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good, with Outstanding caring; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, but the building was not always dementia-friendly.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 9 July 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, friends and staff. They observed care and activities, checked care records, medicines, staff records, the building and the provider's quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Caring was rated Outstanding. Inspectors saw people treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People had choices, personalised care plans, activities and support to stay in contact with others.
Safe care had improved since the previous inspection. Medicines and staff recruitment were being managed more reliably. The layout and decoration were functional, but did not always follow best practice for people living with dementia. The provider had an action plan for improvements.
The previous overall rating was Good, published in April 2017. Caring improved from Good to Outstanding. Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The other ratings stayed Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offer choices, reassurance and comfort. People and visitors said staff understood them well and treated them with dignity.
“We observed staff being kind and thoughtful. They respected people when they interacted with them, offering choices” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and risks. Staff supported people to make choices and to remain as independent as possible.
“People's needs were being met and they were able to make choices about how they spent their time.” from the report
Safer medicines and recruitment
The report says previous shortfalls in medicine checks and recruitment had been addressed. Records, storage, staff training and competency checks were in place.
“There were effective systems to ensure that people had enough medicines, that these were reordered when needed and that records relating to these were correct.” from the report
Activities and community
People could join activities such as music, baking, arts and crafts, trips and visits from community groups. Relatives and friends were welcomed.
“There was a lively atmosphere and a sense of community.” from the report
Support for equality and identity
The home had taken specific steps to understand and support LGBT+ identities. It also planned activities and food around people's cultural needs and identities.
“The provider had been proactive in developing an environment which was LGBT+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) friendly and welcoming.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
minorThe building was safe and functional, but its layout and decoration did not always reflect best practice for people living with dementia. The provider had an action plan and planned building work.
“The layout and décor of the home were functional but did not always reflect best practice guidance for dementia friendly environments.” from the report
- 01What specific changes are planned to make the layout and decoration more dementia-friendly, and when will they be completed?
- 02How many staff normally work on each shift, and how are absences and vacancies covered?
- 03How would you tailor activities, meals and daily routines to my relative's interests, culture and communication needs?
- 04How would you support my relative if they needed textured food, had a risk of choking or needed extra help with drinking?
- 05Which activities and services are provided by the home, and which are provided by the neighbouring day centre that is not regulated by the CQC?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the neighbouring day centre was not regulated by the CQC and was not covered. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines and staff recruitment were not always managed safely.
The inspection took place on 8 and 13 March 2017. The first day was unannounced. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files and other records, observed care and spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
The home cared for up to 19 people with dementia care needs and was full at the inspection. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, enough staff, suitable training, personalised records, activities and good support with food and healthcare.
The Safe rating was Requires Improvement. Recruitment checks were not always completed properly, and medicines records, stock checks and monitoring had shortcomings. The home took action during and after the inspection. The other four areas were rated Good, giving an overall rating of Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were happy with the care. Staff listened, offered choices and treated people with dignity.
“Staff understood the individual care and support people needed and provided this in a kind and caring manner.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors and people using the service found there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and atmosphere
The home offered activities in the home, garden and day centre. Inspectors saw arts and crafts, music, quizzes and reminiscence activities.
“The service provided a wide variety of activities for people to take part in and there was a good atmosphere in the service.” from the report
Support with health and nutrition
People's diets, weights and health needs were monitored. Staff involved healthcare professionals when needed and followed their advice.
“People received input from healthcare professionals so that their health care needs were met.” from the report
Medicine checks
seriousStock counts did not match records for three people. Expired medicines had not been removed, and some administration instructions and records were incomplete.
“Medicines were not always being managed safely. On the first day of inspection we carried out a stock check of boxed medicines.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingSome recruitment records did not contain complete employment histories or properly verified recent references. The manager obtained a further reference after the inspection.
“Staff recruitment procedures were not always being robustly followed to ensure only suitable staff were employed by the service.” from the report
Quality monitoring
needs fixingThe home's checks did not always find problems with medicines and recruitment. The manager said stronger monitoring processes had been introduced.
“Systems for monitoring the service were in place, however they were not robust and did not always identify shortfalls.” from the report
Involvement in care reviews
minorInspectors did not see evidence that people or relatives were involved in care plans and reviews. The managers said they would find out what involvement people wanted and record it.
“We did not see any involvement of people or, where appropriate, their relatives in the care plans and reviews, however there was no evidence of this having a negative impact upon people using the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines stock checks, expiry-date checks and monthly audits since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that references and employment histories are complete and verified before staff start work?
- 03How are people and relatives involved in care plans and reviews now?
- 04How do you check that all staff, including non-care staff, receive training relevant to their role?
- 05What evidence can you show that the new quality monitoring systems are identifying and correcting shortfalls?
This was the first inspection under the home's current registration and covered the overall quality of the service, with ratings given for all five questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 April 2017 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
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.