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. Risks, medicines, safeguarding, infection control and incidents were managed appropriately, although staff were sometimes too busy to spend time talking with people.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and care needs were well supported. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals, but oral hygiene care plans were not yet in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm, compassionate care. Staff promoted people's dignity, privacy, independence and involvement in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's histories, interests and preferences, and staff knew people well. However, meaningful group activities were not consistently provided.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager. Audits, feedback systems and a development plan were in place, although annual staff appraisals were behind schedule.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but activities were not always provided consistently.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 22 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives spoke very positively about the care. Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions, and found that medicines, risks, staffing and safeguarding were managed safely.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Group activities were not always available, some parts of the building and some bedrooms needed updating, and oral hygiene care plans were not in place. The manager had plans or had agreed to address these points.
The rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, which was also Good and was published on 15 February 2017. Good means the inspection found a reliable standard of care, but it does not mean that every part of the service was perfect.
People felt safe
Everyone using the service who spoke with inspectors said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“All the people we spoke with felt safe and recommended the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed warm interactions. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence, including during personal care.
“We observed warm and compassionate care which demonstrated strong relationships and understanding of people's needs and preferences.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's life histories, interests and wishes. The home supported individual projects and interests, including gardening and maintaining family links.
“People received a person-centred service supported by staff who knew them well.” from the report
Good safety systems
Recruitment, staffing, risk assessments, medicines checks and incident reviews were all found to be well managed.
“The provider had robust recruitment procedures and had enough staff to ensure people felt safe and well cared for.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff described the manager as approachable and committed. Quality checks and consultation with people were well established.
“There were good quality assurance systems in place and people were regularly consulted on the quality of care provided.” from the report
Activities were not consistent
needs fixingThe home offered some events, outings and individual activities, but group activities did not always take place. Staff shortages and limited activity staffing affected consistency.
“However, others noted activities often did not take place due to staff shortages and felt there were insufficient regular activities organised within the home for people to join in with.” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorParts of the building and some bedrooms looked tired. Refurbishment was under way, and the manager also planned to improve fencing in the garden.
“There were some aspects of the home that required updating but the home already had a development plan to address these issues.” from the report
Oral hygiene plans were missing
needs fixingThe home did not have oral hygiene care plans at the inspection. The manager agreed to introduce them and review access to dental care.
“The provider did not have oral hygiene care plans in place.” from the report
- 01How often are meaningful group activities now provided, and what happens if an activity is cancelled?
- 02What improvements have been completed to the upstairs lounge, bedrooms and garden fencing since the inspection?
- 03Are oral hygiene care plans now in place for every resident who needs one?
- 04How do you make sure staff have enough time to spend socially with residents as well as completing care tasks?
- 05How will you support my relative's own interests, routines, independence and preferred activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had not been made.
This was an unannounced inspection on 18 and 20 January 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, two visitors and five staff members. They also observed care, checked four care records, reviewed medicines and looked at staff training and quality checks.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support and suitable risk assessments. People were supported by trained staff who knew their needs and preferences. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, good support with food and drink, quick contact with health professionals and activities that reflected people's interests.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. There were still some matters to address. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had not been made for everyone who might need them, employment-history gaps were not explained in two staff files and staff did not always knock before entering rooms.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being gentle, considerate and respectful. Staff knew people well and adapted care to their choices and routines.
“We spent time watching how staff interacted with people and found that they were kind, gentle and considerate towards people.” from the report
Enough staff
People received prompt responses to call bells and inspectors found staff numbers matched the home's dependency assessment. Extra staff were obtained when there were sudden shortages.
“We concluded that there were enough staff scheduled to be on duty and that the registered manager took action in the event of any drop in the planned staffing numbers.” from the report
Detailed care plans
Care records included people's histories, preferences, health conditions and the support they needed. This gave staff clear guidance, including when agency staff were working.
“Staff had written plans in so much detail that we found we could determine which person the care plan was written about without knowing people.” from the report
Good food and health support
People could choose their meals and drinks, and staff monitored nutrition and weight. Staff contacted healthcare professionals quickly when people needed advice or treatment.
“People had a choice of drinks during their meal and staff described the meal choices that were available, before people made their decision.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The registered manager completed monthly audits and acted when issues were found. Staff, people and visitors could raise concerns.
“The registered manager completed monthly audits of the home's systems to identify any areas that needed improvement.” from the report
DoLS applications
needs fixingThe home had applied for safeguards for some people, but inspectors found applications had not been considered for people who were not actively trying to leave. The manager said they would update their training and submit further applications.
“The provider was not always meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingMost recruitment checks had been completed before staff started. However, two staff files contained gaps in employment histories without an explanation.
“However, gaps in prospective employee's employment histories were not examined and we found no information to explain gaps in two staff files that we looked at.” from the report
Privacy at room entrances
minorInspectors saw that most staff knocked before entering people's rooms, but this did not happen every time. Personal care was given behind closed doors.
“We saw that most staff knocked on people's doors before entering rooms, although there were a couple of occasions when the staff member did not knock.” from the report
- 01How do you now identify everyone who may need a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards application, including people who are not actively trying to leave?
- 02Have the additional Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications mentioned in the report been completed, and what is their current status?
- 03How do you check and record explanations for gaps in applicants' employment histories before they start work?
- 04How do you make sure staff knock before entering rooms on every occasion?
- 05What changes have you made to activities and laundry since the issues identified in the 2015 survey?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five questions and providing ratings for each. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 April 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.