CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodlands Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 17 November 2020 as part of a national COVID-19 infection prevention and control review. The visit was announced.
They found enough protective equipment, including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser. Staff were using it properly, and infection control policies had been updated.
The home had testing for staff and residents, a plan for winter, and a separate building to support people with dementia who needed to isolate after testing positive.
This was not a full inspection of the home. It was inspected but not rated, and only infection prevention and control under the Safe question was reviewed.
Protective equipment
The home had sufficient PPE and staff were wearing it appropriately.
“The provider ensured there was sufficient stock of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in place including masks, gloves, aprons and hand sanitiser.” from the report
Support with isolation
A separate building could be used for people with dementia who tested positive and needed extra support to isolate.
“There was an separate building in the grounds of the service.” from the report
Regular testing
There was a testing programme for staff and residents to identify infections, including infections without symptoms.
“There was a testing programme in place for staff and people living in the service.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had current knowledge about infection prevention, PPE and COVID-19, including practical checks on handwashing and using PPE.
“The provider had ensured staff were skilled and had up to date knowledge in relation to infection prevention and control, use of PPE and COVID-19.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection in November 2020?
- 02How often are staff and residents tested now, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How would you support a resident with dementia who needs to isolate?
- 04How do you check that staff are using PPE and following handwashing procedures correctly?
- 05What arrangements are in place for admitting new residents safely?
This was a thematic review of infection prevention and control, covering the Safe question only; the other areas and an overall rating were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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, November 2018
Woodlands Court Care Home was rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines checks and some care records were not consistently safe.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 and 17 August 2018. Inspectors reviewed records, medicines systems and staff files. They spoke with people living at the home, a visitor, managers and staff, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicine stock checks were missed, some medicines were not given as prescribed, and action was not always taken when problems were found.
Inspectors found that care plans reflected people's needs and that staff generally provided kind, personalised care. People said they felt safe, liked the food, could complain, and were supported with healthcare and end-of-life wishes.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. However, its monitoring systems had not identified problems with medicines, wound recording and one observed example of care that did not protect a person's dignity.
Personalised care
Care plans accurately described people's needs and staff delivered care in line with them. Staff also supported people to make everyday choices.
“People's care plans accurately reflected their needs and planned how to keep them safe from any identified risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Most staff were kind, offered emotional support and respected people's privacy. People said they felt well looked after.
“Most staff were kind and caring and engaged with people.” from the report
Food and healthcare
People were happy with the food and could request alternatives. Staff monitored nutrition and helped people access GPs, nurses and other healthcare professionals.
“People were happy with the quality and choice of food.” from the report
Complaints and end-of-life support
People knew how to complain and felt concerns would be resolved. End-of-life wishes were recorded and families could spend time with their relatives.
“People knew how to make a complaint.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and was rated Good overall at this inspection.
“At the previous inspection the service was rated as requires improvement, at this inspection the provider had made the necessary improvements and the service was rated as good.” from the report
Medicine checks and supply
seriousMedicine stock counts were missed and problems were not always acted on. One person received one asthma tablet instead of two, and another did not have an as-required medicine available for four days.
“However, we saw that the counts had not always been completed and some medicine had not been administered as prescribed.” from the report
Wound records
needs fixingWounds were not routinely measured, described or photographed. This made it difficult to tell from the records whether wounds were healing or needed different treatment.
“Wounds were not routinely measured, described or photographed so it was not always possible to see from the records if wounds were healing” from the report
Dignity during personal care
minorInspectors observed one staff member not always listening to people. During moving with a hoist, a person's clothing moved and their bottom was left on display.
“Their dignity was not maintained as their skirt rucked up and their bottom was on display.” from the report
Quality checks
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not found the medicine and wound-recording problems before the inspection.
“Systems in place had not identified concerns around wound management and monitoring of medicines.” from the report
- 01How are medicine stock counts completed now, and what happens immediately if a count does not match?
- 02How do you investigate and prevent medicines being missed, given that one person's medicine was unavailable for four days?
- 03How are wound measurements, descriptions and photographs recorded and checked?
- 04How do you make sure staff listen to people and protect their dignity during moving and personal care?
- 05What checks show that the improvements promised during the inspection have been maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, nursing provision and premises, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 November 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 Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 December 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.