CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands Home for Older People
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People generally felt safe and there were enough staff, but infection control, some risk assessments, recruitment records and accident analysis were not always satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff were trained and people received support with nutrition, hydration and healthcare. There was limited information in some files about restrictions on liberty.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers and staff understood their roles. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that safety arrangements were not always reliable and rated Safe as Requires Improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 4 and 5 April 2022. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They observed care, toured the building and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable support with food and drink, and staff who were trained and supported. The home was also described as well managed, with systems to check quality and act on problems.
There were important gaps in safety checks. Some staff did not wear face masks correctly, a person who was self-isolating was not properly separated, one falls risk assessment was out of date, and some recruitment and accident records were incomplete. The home took some immediate action, including extra training and a new recruitment checklist.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2019 to Good. Safe remained Requires Improvement. Effective and Well-led improved to Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with the care they received.
“People told us they felt safe and were happy with the care they received.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw enough staff to meet people's needs. Staffing had increased during the day since the previous inspection.
“We observed there were sufficient staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff were trained and their practice was checked.
“Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff were suitably trained to administer medicines and checks on their practice had been carried out.” from the report
Effective support
The home assessed people's needs before they moved in and supported nutrition, hydration and access to healthcare.
“The registered manager ensured people's needs were appropriately assessed before using the service.” from the report
Open management
People and staff found the manager approachable. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify improvements.
“The provider had established systems to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Infection control gaps
seriousSome staff did not wear face masks correctly. The home had not properly separated a person self-isolating after a positive coronavirus test, increasing the risk of infection.
“This was because not all staff were wearing face masks appropriately and robust arrangements had not been made to separate people from a person who was self-isolating following a positive test for coronavirus.” from the report
Falls risk record was out of date
seriousOne person's risk assessment still said there was no falls risk after the person had fallen. The manager agreed to review the records.
“The risk assessment forms had not always been updated following a change in need, for instance one person had experienced a fall, but their risk assessment indicated no falls.” from the report
Recruitment records incomplete
needs fixingThe staff files checked did not always contain a full employment history. The manager later sent a new recruitment checklist.
“From the files seen, we noted there was a gap in one staff member's employment and the other staff's full employment history was not available.” from the report
Accident learning was limited
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were recorded, but the home had not analysed them for patterns or trends. This made it harder to identify lessons.
“However, an analysis had not been undertaken to identify any patterns or trends. This made it difficult to identify any lessons learned” from the report
Limited liberty restriction records
needs fixingApplications to restrict people's liberty had been made, but care files did not always explain why or how restrictions should be kept to the minimum necessary.
“However, there was limited information in people's care files about why the DoLS application had been made and how people should be supported in the least restrictive way.” from the report
- 01What has changed to make sure staff wear face masks correctly and people who are self-isolating are properly separated?
- 02How do you now update a person's falls risk assessment immediately after a fall or change in need?
- 03How do you check that every new staff member has provided a complete employment history?
- 04How are accidents and incidents now analysed for patterns, and what changes have resulted?
- 05How do care files explain the reasons for any DoLS application and how restrictions will be kept least restrictive?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used for the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 April 2022 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 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe ways to keep people in touch with relatives.
The inspection took place on 8 December 2020. It was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visitors and admissions, and following shielding and social distancing rules. They also found updated infection control policies, regular audits and supplies of protective equipment.
The home was not given an overall quality rating. Safe was inspected but not rated. The other four areas were not covered by this inspection.
Infection control
Staff had training in PPE, took part in weekly testing and were observed wearing suitable PPE. Supplies were plentiful and carefully monitored.
“The registered manager had implemented robust infection prevention and control procedures which were understood and followed by the staff.” from the report
Safe visiting and family contact
Essential visits were risk assessed. The home also used technology, telephone calls and window visits to help people stay in contact with relatives.
“The registered manager and staff had found different ways to enable people to maintain contact with their relatives which included the use of computer technology, telephone calls and window visits.” from the report
People's wellbeing
Inspectors saw a warm, cheerful and calm atmosphere. Staff spent time with people and had planned entertainment for the Christmas period.
“The atmosphere in the home was warm, cheerful and calm.” from the report
Planning for outbreaks
The provider had an up-to-date infection control policy, regular audits, a business contingency plan and pandemic-related guidance and risk assessments.
“The provider also had a business contingency plan and had developed guidance and risk assessments in relation to the current pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current infection prevention and control procedure?
- 02How are visitors currently managed and how can relatives keep in contact with residents?
- 03How does the home test staff and residents when there is an infection risk?
- 04What are the home's current arrangements for PPE and managing an outbreak?
- 05Can you show me the latest CQC ratings or inspection information for care, staffing, medicines and management?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the other four key questions were not covered and Safe was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Woodlands Home for Older People
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woodlands Home for Older People →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Woodlands Home for Older People →
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 February 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.