CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodleigh Lodge Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks were assessed. There were enough staff and medicines were administered as prescribed, although some risk measures and medicines stock records were not clearly recorded.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff training had improved through a new training plan. People received support with food, drink, healthcare and consent, including specialist advice where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and support for privacy, dignity, independence, cultural needs and religious needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were more accurate and reviewed regularly. People had activities based on their interests, could raise complaints and were supported at the end of life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight and audits had improved. People, relatives and staff could raise concerns, and people were involved in activities such as menu planning and staff interviews.
What inspectors found, February 2019
The Weir Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found major improvements, with a few records and environmental issues still needing attention.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection over three visits on 28 November and 11 December 2018, and 10 January 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines administration, improved cleanliness, better care plans, suitable training and kind interactions. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, activities and end-of-life care.
This was a clear improvement from the previous inspection in November 2017, when the home was rated Requires Improvement and had five breaches of regulations. Inspectors said the provider had made sufficient improvements and was compliant with the regulations at this inspection.
Major improvement
The home had addressed the problems found at the previous inspection. Inspectors said its systems and practice were now sufficient to meet the regulations.
“The provider had taken action and implemented sufficient improvements to their systems, processes and practice which meant they were now compliant with the regulations.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff spending time with people, talking with them and supporting their dignity and independence.
“We observed caring interactions between staff and the people they were supporting.” from the report
Activities and choice
Activities were linked to people's interests and abilities. People were also involved in menu planning and everyday tasks that supported their independence.
“We saw people taking part in activities such as bowls and bingo.” from the report
Stronger leadership
The provider introduced an improvement plan, regular audits and meetings. People, relatives and staff had opportunities to share views and suggest changes.
“The provider had reviewed the systems used to assess and monitor the safety and quality of the service, and we saw that these were now more robust.” from the report
Risk information was not always easy to find
needs fixingSome measures to reduce risks were recorded elsewhere rather than clearly on the risk assessments. The manager said these records would be reviewed.
“In some cases, the measures to reduce the risk were not recorded appropriately on the risk assessments.” from the report
One bedroom had an unpleasant smell
minorMost of the home was clean and free from unpleasant odours, but inspectors found one bedroom smelled of urine. The manager said its flooring was due to be replaced.
“We noted one bedroom smelt of urine. The registered manager acknowledged this and assured us that the flooring in this room was due to be replaced.” from the report
Medicines stock records were unclear
needs fixingInspectors found that medicines were administered safely, but they could not see a clear record of the stock held for the people checked. A monthly review system was introduced during the inspection.
“We were unable to see a clear record of the amount of stock held at the service for the people we checked.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure risk-reduction measures are recorded clearly on each person's risk assessment?
- 02How often are medicines stocks checked, and can relatives see how discrepancies are dealt with?
- 03Has the flooring in the bedroom that smelled of urine been replaced, and how is cleanliness monitored now?
- 04How are residents and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and agreeing changes?
- 05What activities are currently available for people with different interests, abilities and faiths?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection that checked the overall service, including premises and care, and reassessed all five CQC questions after the November 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 February 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, February 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found five legal breaches, including unsafe risks, poor records and care that did not always protect dignity.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 and 28 November 2017. It followed concerns from a whistle-blower and covered the building, care, records, medicines, staffing and how the home was managed. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and audits.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found potential hazards such as frayed carpets, unsafe wheelchairs and poor cleaning records. Risk assessments and care plans did not always reflect people's current needs. Staff training records were unclear, with gaps in safeguarding, dementia, mental capacity and equality and diversity training.
Some care was kind and people generally said staff were caring. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were judged appropriate during the inspection, and people were helped to access healthcare. However, dignity was not always respected, activities were limited, and the home's checks had not identified important safety and care problems.
Safe medicines
Medicines were recorded as given, including controlled drugs, and refrigerated medicines were checked. Recruitment checks were also completed before staff started work.
“There were no gaps in the medicine administration records (MARs) showing people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff referred people to health professionals when needed. Records showed contact with GPs, podiatry, physiotherapy and community nursing services.
“Staff had developed effective working relationships with a range of social care and health professionals to help ensure positive outcomes for people's health and well-being.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw some staff spending time talking with people and showing kindness and humour. People generally described staff positively.
“Staff demonstrated kindness, compassion and good humour to people and their relatives in some areas of the service.” from the report
Action during inspection
The manager acted on some concerns raised during the inspection. Unsafe wheelchairs were removed from use and other immediate changes were made.
“During our inspection they took on board our feedback and made improvements that immediately reduced some of the risks we found to people's safety and wellbeing.” from the report
Unsafe risks and environment
seriousRisk assessments did not always give staff enough information to prevent harm. Inspectors also found frayed or missing flooring, unsafe wheelchairs and poor cleaning and infection control arrangements.
“This placed people at risk of harm as risk assessments failed to provide enough information for staff to adequately understand or mitigate risks posed to people they cared for.” from the report
Dignity and personal care
seriousPeople's privacy and dignity were not consistently protected. Inspectors saw staff discuss someone's bowel habits in front of others, enter rooms without knocking and fail to maintain some people's appearance and hygiene.
“However, this level of compassion was not practiced throughout the service and people's privacy and dignity was not always respected.” from the report
Out-of-date care plans
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not always reflect changes in people's health, medicines or support needs. Four of five people asked had not seen their care plan.
“Care plans and risk assessments were not always person centred.” from the report
Staff training gaps
seriousTraining records were unclear and showed gaps in safeguarding, dementia, mental capacity and equality and diversity training. Staff knowledge of mental capacity and deprivation of liberty duties was mixed.
“The training records were disorganised and unclear with regards to which staff had completed training, what training the staff were expected to do and the frequency.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingThere was no regular timetable of activities based on people's interests. Inspectors found no meaningful activities for people living with dementia.
“There were no activities that were meaningful to people living with dementia.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not identify several problems with care plans, risks, training, maintenance and infection control. Records were not always accurate or current.
“This meant that although there was a system in place to review various parts of the service this had not identified the gaps we identified during our inspection.” from the report
- 01Have all frayed carpets, damaged flooring and unsafe wheelchairs been replaced or repaired?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans and risk assessments reflect changes in each person's health, medicines and support needs?
- 03Can you show me the current staff training records, especially for safeguarding, dementia, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards?
- 04What regular activities are now available for people living with dementia, and how are they based on individual interests?
- 05How do your current audits identify problems with dignity, personal hygiene, infection control and care records?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, the building, care and management systems, after concerns were raised by a whistle-blower. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 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.
Every inspection of Woodleigh Lodge Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woodleigh Lodge Residential Care Home →
- February 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Woodleigh Lodge Residential Care Home →
- March 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.