CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands House
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staff understood safeguarding procedures, and risks were assessed and reviewed. Medicines, staffing, recruitment and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The home worked well with healthcare professionals and staff had relevant training. However, the building, signs and information did not fully meet the needs of people living with dementia, and mealtime support needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff offered choices, supported independence and helped people maintain relationships with relatives and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and personal histories. Activities, religious support, visits, complaints handling and end-of-life wishes were appropriately supported.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Staff worked well together and people and relatives gave positive feedback about the care. However, quality checks had not identified or resolved the environmental and mealtime problems, and there was no registered manager in post.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the dementia environment, mealtimes and management needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 17 July 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed records, including four care plans.
People generally felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff understood safeguarding, medicines were managed safely, care plans were up to date, and people had access to activities, visitors and healthcare support.
The home did not fully meet the needs of people living with dementia. Signage and information were not always accessible, parts of the building needed repair and cleaning, and the dining arrangements did not always support people to eat independently.
The overall rating Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently providing a good service. Safe, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People told inspectors they were treated kindly. Staff supported people's dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“People were happy with the care they received, felt relaxed with staff and told us they were treated with kindness.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines records were accurate and medicines were stored securely. Audits were used to check administration and storage.
“Regular auditing of medicine procedures had taken place, including checks on accurately recording administered medicines as well as temperature checks of medicines storage areas.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, backgrounds and religious beliefs. Staff said they knew people well and provided individual support.
“Individual person-centred care plans had been developed, enabling staff to support people in a personalised way that was specific to their needs and preferences, including any individual religious beliefs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could see relatives and take part in a range of activities. Staff also spent one-to-one time with people.
“There was a range of activities on offer which included, music, arts and crafts, exercise, reminiscence sessions and visits from external entertainers.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
seriousThe layout, signs and information were not always suitable for people living with dementia. Some furniture and other areas needed repair, redecoration or better cleaning.
“The premises were safe but were not well maintained or well presented.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingThe dining room was locked outside mealtimes and the meal was not always suitable for people who ate with their fingers. Inspectors recommended considering finger food and adapted equipment.
“Staff had not considered that a choice of 'finger food' may be more suitable, or that the use of adapted equipment such as plate guards and dementia friendly cutlery would have assisted people to eat and enjoy their meal more.” from the report
Quality checks did not find problems
needs fixingThe provider had audits in place, but these had not identified or corrected the environmental and mealtime issues found during the inspection.
“However, despite these systems being in place, the provider had failed to identify areas of practice that needed improvement.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post when inspectors visited. The provider said it was trying to recruit one.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the building, signs and information to make the home easier for people with dementia to use?
- 02Are the dining room and other communal areas now available to residents outside mealtimes?
- 03How do you support people who eat with their fingers or are at risk of losing weight?
- 04Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home while this is being arranged?
- 05What checks now make sure environmental and mealtime problems are identified and corrected promptly?
This was the first full inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the previous provider's last rating was Good in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 August 2023 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 House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 October 2021.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West 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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.