CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were safely recruited, risk assessments were reviewed, the home was clean and trained staff administered medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, care plans recorded people's needs, and people received help with food, drink and healthcare. The home supported choice and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw patient and respectful care. People were involved in choices about food, activities, rooms and their daily routines.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and information was provided in accessible formats. There were daily activities, support for relationships and community links, clear complaints information and recorded end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager was described as knowledgeable and proactive. Audits, staff feedback, surveys and partnerships with health and social care services were used to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Woodlands was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some people saying they could be happier.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 25 June 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practices, clean surroundings and regular risk checks. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication and choices.
Inspectors found staff to be patient, respectful and caring. The home offered daily activities, links with the local community and care plans based on people's likes, dislikes and wishes.
The overall Good rating means the service met the standards inspectors checked and provided consistently good care at the time of the visit. The previous inspection was also rated Good, published on 17 November 2016.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found robust recruitment, appropriate training and enough staff to support people when needed. An extra general carer post had recently been created to provide additional help during the day.
“There were enough staff to support people when they needed help.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient, polite and attentive. Inspectors saw a staff member spending time comforting a distressed person.
“We saw good care, for example a staff member sitting with a person for over 15 minutes holding the person's hand and comforting them as they were distressed.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, hobbies, likes and dislikes. People and relatives were involved in planning care and could personalise their rooms.
“Care plans also contained people's likes and dislikes, their hobbies and things that were special to them in the past.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had two or three activities planned each day, alongside dementia choir, dementia café, pet therapy and visits from local families.
“There were two or three activities planned daily, including music, art, and quizzes.” from the report
Good leadership
The manager and staff team were described as approachable and supportive. The home used audits, surveys and feedback to identify improvements.
“The registered manager was involved in all aspects of the running of the home and provided their team with skilled leadership.” from the report
Some people wanted to be happier
minorA recent survey found that 21% of people felt they could be happier at the home. The provider responded by introducing quarterly residents' meetings and reviewing care plans for signs of isolation.
“When a recent survey showed that 21% of people felt they could be happier at the home, the provider introduced quarterly residents' meetings” from the report
- 01What changes have been made since the survey found that 21% of people felt they could be happier?
- 02How are residents' views collected and acted on now?
- 03How many staff are on duty at different times, and is the extra general carer post still in place?
- 04Which activities are available each day, including for people who stay in their rooms?
- 05How are care plans updated when a person's health, preferences or end of life wishes change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings from 2016 reviewed again. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 December 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, November 2016
Woodlands was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few minor records and risk-assessment gaps.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 03 October 2016. They spoke with 16 residents, seven relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment files, activities, menus and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training and prompt healthcare referrals. People were treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, and offered activities and outings suited to their interests.
A few minor issues were identified. The safeguarding contact page was blank, communal areas were not included in some environmental risk assessments, and the medicines policy did not fully cover some medicines arrangements. The report also says managers were addressing shortfalls through audits and action plans.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and adapted how they communicated. Inspectors saw positive relationships and respect for privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“Staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with utmost kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, interests, likes and dislikes. People and their representatives were invited to take part in care reviews.
“People's individual assessments and care plans were person-centred, reviewed monthly or when their needs changed.” from the report
Activities and community links
The home offered varied activities, events and outings, including options for people living with dementia. Families, volunteers and local groups were involved.
“A wide range of meaningful activities and outings were provided.” from the report
Quality improvement
Managers carried out regular checks and acted on the results. Improvements included filling gaps in records, replenishing first aid boxes and updating medicines protocols.
“There was a robust system in place to monitor the quality of the service and drive improvements.” from the report
Safeguarding contact details
minorThe page listing essential local safeguarding contacts was blank. Staff knew how to find the information, but the report identified this as a records gap.
“The page for essential local safeguarding contacts was blank however staff we spoke with knew how to access the necessary information.” from the report
Communal-area risk checks
needs fixingEnvironmental risk assessments covered people's bedrooms but not communal areas. The manager said this would be remedied.
“Environmental risk assessments included people's bedrooms although they did not include communal areas and the manager told us this would be remedied.” from the report
Medicines policy detail
minorThe medicines policy did not fully explain homely medicines or protocols for medicines taken as needed. The report says these protocols were later added following an audit.
“The service's medicines policy did not describe or explain the approach to homely medicines nor made reference to protocols for PRN medicines (to be taken as required).” from the report
- 01Have the environmental risk assessments been updated to include all communal areas?
- 02How are local safeguarding contact details kept complete and accessible to staff?
- 03How does the current medicines policy cover homely medicines and medicines taken as needed?
- 04Who is now the registered manager, and how was the management change completed?
- 05How are residents and relatives involved in monthly care-plan reviews and decisions about activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality and safety of the home, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2011.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.