CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodlands Park Care Centre
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Woodlands Park Care Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some concerns about access to drinks and healthcare notes.
This was an unannounced inspection over a night shift and a weekend day shift. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about night care, food and access to drinks. Inspectors found no evidence that people were harmed by these concerns. However, some people did not always have drinks within easy reach. The home then added more jugs and cups, a hydration station and regular snacks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspectors found that people generally received good care and experienced good outcomes. They recommended improving the records made by visiting community healthcare professionals.
Safe staffing
Inspectors checked care during the night and found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Agency staff working at the home were regular workers, which supported consistency.
“Our night time site visit found people received appropriate and safe care.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences, life stories and support needs. Staff knew people well and used this information in daily care.
“There were very detailed care plans in place.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home supported an active social life, with activities linked to people's interests, culture and abilities. Staff also helped people who were socially isolated to become more involved.
“The activities coordinator and staff were very mindful of ensuring links with the community and encouraging people's independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and found that dignity, privacy and independence were respected.
“Staff were friendly, courteous and professional.” from the report
Strong management
Managers understood the service and used audits and an improvement plan to identify and manage risks. Staff and families had opportunities to give feedback.
“There was an up to date, extensive continuous improvement plan in place.” from the report
Drinks were not always within reach
needs fixingInspectors found that some people could not easily reach or see drinks in bedrooms and shared areas. The home gave written assurances about extra drinks containers, a hydration station and snacks.
“There was evidence that some people did not have easy access to fluids.” from the report
Healthcare notes
needs fixingThe report recommended a clearer way to make sure visiting community healthcare professionals record the treatment they provide at the home.
“We recommend the provider implements a method to ensure visiting community healthcare professionals provide relevant notes about any treatment they carried out at the care home.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every person can see and reach a drink in their bedroom and in communal areas?
- 02What changes have you made since the inspection to provide extra jugs, cups, snacks and the hydration station?
- 03How do you make sure notes from district nurses, GPs and other visiting healthcare professionals are added to care records?
- 04How many permanent care staff are currently employed, and how often are regular agency staff used?
- 05How will you make sure activities continue to reflect my relative's interests, abilities, culture and communication needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including a night shift and a weekend day shift, with particular checks on concerns about night care, food and drinks. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, effective care and clear improvements, but noted ongoing risks around the stairs and some medicines records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 and 23 November 2016. Inspectors reviewed care plans, medicines, staff files, audits and accident records. They spoke with staff, relatives, health professionals and managers.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements since the previous inspection in December 2015, including safer medicines systems, better staffing, improved records and better support at the end of life.
There were still some matters to watch. A stair gate was left open twice, medicines records had missing signatures and some medicines had not always been available. Staff supervision was taking place, but not always as often as the provider's policy required.
Improved safety
The home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection. Inspectors found better staffing, fire training, accident records, mattresses and end-of-life support.
“We found during this inspection improvements had been made.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time with people, used their preferred names and supported their choices and independence. Relatives spoke positively about the care.
“Throughout our visit staff were observed addressing people by their preferred name and interacted with them in a supportive manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's routines, interests and preferences. Staff could explain how individuals liked to be supported.
“Care plans were personalised and detailed daily routines specific for each person.” from the report
Activities and social contact
An activity coordinator provided group activities, entertainment and one-to-one support, including for people who stayed in bed.
“The provider had employed an activity coordinator to support people to take part in social events.” from the report
Support at the end of life
People's end-of-life wishes were discussed with them and their families. Specialist healthcare professionals and anticipatory medicines were available when needed.
“We saw that when people were frail and receiving end of life support they were comfortable and had specific anticipatory medicines in the home” from the report
Stair gate risk
needs fixingThe stair gate at the top of the main staircase was left open on two occasions. Inspectors recommended keeping procedures around the gate under review.
“On two occasions we saw that the gate was left open at the top of the stairs.” from the report
Medicines records and availability
needs fixingSeveral medicines administration records had missing signatures, and some medicines had not always been available. The home was investigating these issues through audits and discussions with health professionals.
“We saw MAR charts were not always completed to show what medicines people had received.” from the report
Staff supervision
minorStaff said they felt supported, but inspectors could not confirm that supervision happened as regularly as the provider's policy required.
“Staff received supervision and told us they felt supported. However, the frequency was not in line with the company policy” from the report
Care instructions
needs fixingAn agency worker did not appear to know the visiting GP's instruction about stage three thickened fluids for one person. The manager said they would look into this.
“The advice from the GP was to only give stage three thickened fluids slowly.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure the stair gate is closed or safely managed whenever it needs to be?
- 02How are missing medicines signatures investigated, and how do you make sure all prescribed medicines are available?
- 03How often will staff receive supervision, and how is this checked against the provider's policy?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff understand individual instructions, including thickened-fluid guidance?
- 05Who is managing the home when the registered manager is absent, and how are relatives kept informed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements required after the December 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 April 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 Park Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 December 2010.
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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of Buckinghamshire
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 £1,300 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.