CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodlands Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff to keep people safe and meet their physical needs. Risks, safeguarding, infection control and medicines were managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had training and supported people with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices being respected.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Staff met physical needs but were often too busy to provide companionship. Some people had little stimulation, were not regularly taken out and were not always offered choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff described the management as supportive and approachable. Audits, meetings and reviews were used to monitor care and identify improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but activities, companionship and choice needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care plans and records, and observed care and activities.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's physical needs, safe medicines, suitable training, kind care and good management. People were also supported with healthcare, food and drink, communication and end of life planning.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Staff were often busy completing tasks, so some people lacked companionship and stimulation. Inspectors also saw that one group was not offered a choice of lunch, and some people wanted more trips out.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection in November 2016. However, Safe improved from Requires Improvement to Good, while Responsive fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely and meet their physical needs. Individual risks were assessed and reviewed.
“There was enough staff to support people safely and meet their physical needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described close relationships with staff. Inspectors saw privacy, dignity and independence being promoted.
“People told us they had close relationships with staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Good healthcare support
Staff knew people's changing health needs and made appropriate, timely referrals to healthcare professionals.
“People confirmed they were supported to access health care professionals as and when needed” from the report
Supportive management
People, relatives and staff said the managers were approachable. Audits and meetings helped the home identify and respond to issues.
“Staff told us there was a positive, open culture and this was created and maintained by the registered manager.” from the report
Not enough companionship
needs fixingStaff were able to meet people's physical needs but were often too busy to spend time chatting or engaging meaningfully. Inspectors saw people left with little stimulation.
“Staff were able to meet people's physical needs but did not have the time to provide companionship.” from the report
Limited social activity
needs fixingSome people had not been on a trip out for some time and said they wanted more opportunities. Inspectors also saw limited social interaction during the inspection.
“People had been supported to go out with staff, but we found this was not a regular occurrence” from the report
Meal choice was missed
minorTwo lunch options were available, but people in one dining room were not offered a choice. Managers said they would put plans in place to prevent this happening again.
“During lunch we saw that there were two meal options available, however, in one of the dining rooms we saw that the choice was not offered to people.” from the report
Activity information was hard to read
minorActivity calendars were in small print and could have been difficult for people with sensory loss to see. The provider later said it had started using larger print.
“However, we saw that activities calendars were written in small print, it could be difficult for people with sensory loss to see these.” from the report
- 01What has changed to give staff more time for companionship and meaningful interaction?
- 02How often are residents now supported to go on trips out, and how are individual preferences recorded?
- 03How do you make sure every person is offered a choice at each mealtime?
- 04How are activities adapted for people with sensory loss, including the size and format of activity information?
- 05How do you check that residents and relatives are kept informed about changes in care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and it looked at both the care and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but staffing was not always sufficient at weekends.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 12 September 2016. They spoke with people living there, relatives, care workers and the manager. They observed care, medicines being given and how people and staff interacted.
The home provided care for up to 40 older people. There were 34 people living there on the inspection day. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, suitable staff training, personalised care plans, safe medicines management and good access to health professionals.
The overall rating was Good. However, Safe was rated Requires Improvement because staffing levels, particularly at weekends, were sometimes not enough. The home had improved since the previous inspection and was no longer in breach of the regulation identified then.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking patiently and treating people with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their care and daily choices.
“We saw and heard staff speak with people in a calm, considerate and respectful manner.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, health needs and interests. Staff understood these details and used them to provide consistent support.
“Individual care plans were personalised to reflect people's wishes, preferences, goals and what was important to them.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had completed essential training and received supervision. Inspectors found they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“This demonstrated the care and support needs of people were met by competent staff, with the skills, knowledge and experience to meet such needs effectively.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and checked safely. Records were accurate, and staff had training and competency checks.
“Medicines were managed safely and consistently.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had acted on the previous inspection's concerns about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Inspectors found it was no longer in breach.
“At this inspection we found that necessary improvements had been implemented and the service was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Weekend staffing
seriousStaffing levels were sometimes short at weekends, especially when staff did not attend and cover could not be found. This meant some people could wait longer for help, including getting up.
“Staffing levels, particularly at weekends, were often inconsistent and not always sufficient to ensure people received a safe level of care.” from the report
Activities and stimulation
needs fixingOne relative was concerned that a family member was becoming less active and stimulated. They felt staff should make more effort to encourage participation, while recognising the person's right to choose.
“They were concerned that their family member was becoming less active and less stimulated.” from the report
Staff feeling valued
needs fixingSome staff felt supported by the managers but not always valued by the provider. Concerns included weekend pay and the difficulty of retaining staff.
“However, despite feeling supported by the managers, staff we spoke with did not always feel valued by the provider.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff at weekends, including when people call in sick?
- 02How long might someone wait for help if the home is short-staffed?
- 03How do you encourage people who are becoming less active or less involved in activities?
- 04What staffing changes have been made since this inspection to improve weekend cover?
- 05How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications and authorisations checked and kept up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection of the home's overall quality and all five CQC questions, using discussions, observations and records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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 Nursing Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.