Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Woodlands

Goodpublished 15 December 2017, 8 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People felt safe, staff understood safeguarding and risks, and there were enough experienced staff. Inspectors found inaccurate stock records for two medicines and unclear recording of some healthcare follow-up.
Effective?
Good
Staff were trained, supervised and supported people with their health, food, choices and independence. Some best-interest consultations and two long-standing staff members' Care Certificates had not been fully documented or completed.
Caring?
Good
Staff were kind, patient and respectful. Inspectors saw positive relationships, attention to privacy and support for people's communication, choices and independence.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans reflected people's preferences and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships and community life, although more work was planned to record end-of-life wishes.
Well-led?
Good
The registered manager was viewed positively and encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff. Quality checks and action plans were in place to monitor safety and care.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, December 2017

Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some records and follow-up actions needing improvement.

This was a comprehensive inspection on 16 and 17 November 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.

The home supported six adults with learning disabilities, some of whom also had physical disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities in the local community.

The overall rating was Good. All five areas were also rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors identified some recording and follow-up gaps, but did not rate any area below Good.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful staff

    Inspectors found warm relationships between staff and the people living at the home. People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.

    “People were supported by staff who were kind, patient and caring.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication and what made them happy. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their individual needs.

    “People's care and support plans were person centred and contained information about their likes and dislikes, their preferred daily routines and the things that made them happy” from the report
  • Activities and community life

    People were supported to choose activities, develop skills, attend college, work or volunteer, and keep links with the community.

    “People were supported to take part in a range of leisure activities and follow their own interests and this was a particular strength of the service.” from the report
  • Good safety systems

    Staff understood safeguarding and people's risks. Incidents were investigated, lessons were shared and there were checks on fire safety, equipment, staffing and medicines.

    “Incidents and accidents affecting the safety of people were investigated to make sure that any causes were identified and action taken to minimise any risk of reoccurrence.” from the report
  • Positive leadership

    The manager encouraged involvement from people and staff and used feedback to plan improvements. Provider and local quality checks were also in place.

    “The engagement and involvement of people and staff was encouraged and their feedback was used to drive improvements.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Weight loss follow-up was not recorded

    needs fixing

    One person's records showed significant weight loss over a short period, but there was no evidence of a referral to a healthcare professional. The manager said advice had been sought, but this had not been recorded.

    “We did note that in the case of one person, records showed that they had experienced a significant loss of weight in a short period of time but there was no evidence that they had been referred to a healthcare professional.” from the report
  • Some medicine stock records were inaccurate

    needs fixing

    Two stock records showed fewer medicines than were actually in stock. More frequent checks were planned.

    “We found that two of these stock records were not accurate and under reflected the medicines in stock.” from the report
  • Some health advice was not clearly documented

    needs fixing

    Records showed three occasions when one person's blood glucose was slightly outside the recommended range. It was not clear that healthcare advice had been sought as required by the escalation plan.

    “We did note however, that on three occasions in November 2017, records showed that one person's blood glucose levels were slightly outside of recommended levels, but it was not clear that contact had been made with a healthcare professional in line with the documented escalation plan.” from the report
  • Some best-interest decisions lacked records

    needs fixing

    The manager understood the need for best-interest decisions, but consultations had not always been documented. The manager said this would be fully recorded in future.

    “We did note that whilst the registered manager was aware that decisions made on behalf of people must be in their best interests and made in consultation in relevant persons, the best interest's consultations had not always been documented.” from the report
  • Training completion was delayed

    minor

    Two staff who had worked at the home for more than 12 weeks had not completed the Care Certificate. The manager planned to monitor this and provide more support.

    “However, two staff who had been employed at the service for considerably longer than 12 weeks had still not fully completed the Care Certificate.” from the report
  • End-of-life wishes needed more work

    minor

    Some information was available, but the home planned further work to record people's wishes about their care at the end of life and after death.

    “Further work was planned to ensure that staff had information about people's wishes and preferences for how and where their care should be provided at the end of their life.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check and record medicine stock levels, following the inaccurate records found during the inspection?
  2. 02How do you make sure changes in weight or blood glucose are promptly referred to healthcare professionals and clearly recorded?
  3. 03Have all staff completed the Care Certificate, including the two staff members whose training was incomplete at the inspection?
  4. 04How are best-interest consultations recorded and checked?
  5. 05How do you record each person's wishes about end-of-life care and what happens after their death?

This was the first comprehensive inspection of the service under this provider and covered all five CQC questions, the care home premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 December 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Woodlands

Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.

  1. December 2017Goodcurrent rating
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Woodlands →

  2. October 2016

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire

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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.

“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Emily B., about Prisca S.
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Roderick N., about Jaison M.
See live-in carers near HampshireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.