Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Woodleigh House

Goodpublished 2 November 2018, 7 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People said they felt safe, risk assessments were in place and staffing levels were sufficient. Inspectors found a medicines recording gap for thickening powders and no written protocols for some 'when required' medicines, which the manager acted on immediately.
Effective?
Good
Staff had suitable training, supervision and experience, and people received support with healthcare and nutritional needs. Inspectors found that mental capacity assessments had not always been recorded before DoLS applications or best interest decisions.
Caring?
Good
People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Staff promoted people's privacy, equality, relationships and independence.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans reflected people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs, and people helped plan and review their care. The home supported community links, activities and complaints in accessible formats, but end of life preferences had not been recorded.
Well-led?
Good
People, relatives and professionals gave positive feedback about management. The home used audits, meetings and surveys, although inspectors found only one provider quality assurance inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2018

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised support, but some records and parts of the building needed improvement.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 8 October 2018. The inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff, managers and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care records, staff recruitment and training records, medicines records and management information.

The home supported up to 11 adults with learning disabilities, with 10 people living there at the inspection. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, build independence and take part in community life. Staff were trained, experienced and understood people's needs.

The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection in May 2016. Inspectors identified improvements needed in some mental capacity, medicines, end of life and building records and arrangements.

What inspectors praised
  • Choice and independence

    The home designed support around people's views and encouraged them to develop everyday skills and take part in the community.

    “The service put people's views at the forefront of the service and designed the service around their needs.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors saw a person-centred culture that protected privacy, equality and relationships.

    “There was a person-centred culture at all levels and staff understood that people were at the heart of the service.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans covered people's physical, mental, emotional and social needs. People and families were involved in planning, goals and reviews.

    “People's care records demonstrated that the home had ensured that people's care plans fully reflected their physical, mental, emotional and social needs.” from the report
  • Community involvement

    People were supported to keep local connections, use community facilities and pursue activities and interests that mattered to them.

    “There was a strong emphasis on encouraging and supporting people to maintain local community links and to have an active social life in their community.” from the report
  • Staff development

    Staff had access to training, supervision and competence checks. Inspectors found staff had the skills and confidence needed for their work.

    “There were a variety of learning and development pathways in the service.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicines records

    needs fixing

    Staff had not always recorded the use of thickening powders, and there were no written protocols explaining how to give some 'when required' medicines. The manager took immediate action after the inspection.

    “However, we noted that staff had not always recorded when they had used thickening powders for one person.” from the report
  • Mental capacity records

    needs fixing

    The home had not recorded how it assessed people's mental capacity before some DoLS applications or best interest decisions. The manager said assessments would be completed.

    “the home had not recorded how they had assessed people's mental capacity before applying for DoLS or before considering best interest decisions.” from the report
  • End of life planning

    needs fixing

    Records did not show people's end of life preferences and choices. The manager said this would be considered and staff would be supported to discuss it with people.

    “Records we reviewed did not demonstrate that the provider and the staff had taken into consideration people's preferences and choices for their end of life care.” from the report
  • Repairs to the home

    minor

    Some parts of the building needed repair. Work was under way, but inspectors said improvements to the environment were still needed.

    “Some parts of the home needed repair. We noted that work was underway.” from the report
  • Provider quality checks

    minor

    The provider had carried out only one formal quality assurance inspection. Inspectors said more formal oversight was required.

    “The provider had undertaken a quality assurance inspection, however we only found one had been undertaken.” from the report
  • Accessible information policy

    minor

    Some records were adapted, including easy read information, but inspectors expected the provider to establish a policy covering the Accessible Information Standard.

    “We would expect the provider to establish a policy on the Accessible Information Standard to ensure consistence in their practices.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all the medicines recording issues for thickening powders and 'when required' medicines now been corrected?
  2. 02How do you record mental capacity assessments before making best interest decisions or applying for DoLS?
  3. 03Have the repairs identified during the inspection been completed?
  4. 04How do you record and review each person's end of life preferences and choices?
  5. 05How often does the provider now carry out formal quality assurance inspections?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report says the previous overall rating in May 2016 was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 2018 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 Woodleigh House

2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. November 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Woodleigh House →

  2. June 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. January 2015

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. May 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2014

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 January 2014.

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

85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire

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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
Simon W., about Ncebakazi V.
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Jackie S., about Tracy O.
See live-in carers near LancashireProfiles, 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.