CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodley Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and relatives said staffing levels were good. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines processes and appropriate safeguarding training.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and staff had the training and supervision needed to support people. People received support with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Activities were highly personalised and included interests, community links and one-to-one support. Inspectors also found outstanding end of life care that respected people's wishes and involved healthcare professionals.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, regular meetings and systems for gathering feedback. Audits were used to monitor medicines, care plans, infection control, safety and other areas.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsiveness and inspectors finding personalised, caring and safe support.
This was a planned inspection on 7 and 8 May 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited without giving notice. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable safety checks, well-trained staff, good care planning and respectful support. People said they felt safe and were treated kindly.
Responsive was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found a wide range of activities shaped around people's interests, including community activities and visits from children and animals. They also found outstanding end of life care.
The overall Good rating means the home met legal requirements and provided consistently good care at the time of this inspection. Its previous overall rating was also Good, published in November 2016.
Personalised care
Inspectors found that care was built around individual needs and that staff knew people's routines, preferences and support needs.
“People received excellent care that was based around their individual needs and that ensured care was personalised and responsive.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose activities and suggest new ones. The home offered varied activities linked to people's interests, including community visits and sessions with children and animals.
“The service went above and beyond to recognise and respond to people's needs for social interaction and mental stimulation and many innovative, person-centred activities took place daily.” from the report
End of life care
Inspectors found that staff provided highly dignified end of life care and worked closely with health professionals. Staff had received specialist training and families were supported.
“Woodley Grange staff provided outstanding end of life care and worked extremely closely with healthcare professionals to ensure that people received a pain free and dignified death.” from the report
Staffing and safety
People and relatives told inspectors there were enough staff. Staff were not rushed and responded promptly to requests for help.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's care needs. We observed that staff were not rushed and responded promptly and compassionately to people's requests for support.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff used people's preferred names, protected privacy during personal care and supported people to make choices and remain independent.
“Staff understood the importance of respecting people's privacy and dignity, particularly when supporting them with personal care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you adapt the activities to match my relative's interests, abilities and changing needs?
- 02How will you involve me and my relative in creating and reviewing the care plan?
- 03What end of life support and family involvement would be available if my relative became seriously ill?
- 04How do you make sure there are enough staff at all times, including when people need help promptly?
- 05How do you check that medicines are given safely and recorded correctly?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the care provided and the home environment; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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, safe care, but care records and personalised support needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days, on 11 and 13 October 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff records and management systems.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, suitable support with medicines, good access to health professionals and kind staff who respected privacy and dignity.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Some care records were incomplete, inaccurate or not detailed enough. This included information about mobility, nutrition, pain relief, behaviour and pressure ulcer care. The electronic care planning system was new, and improvements were being made.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people in a kind, patient and caring way. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were cared for by kind and caring staff who respected their choices and were mindful of their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were generally maintained at the home's target levels. Inspectors observed that people's needs were met promptly and in line with their choices.
“Sufficient staff were deployed to ensure people's needs were met in a timely manner.” from the report
Good activities
The home offered group and one-to-one activities based on people's interests and abilities. Staff knew what different people enjoyed, including those who preferred quieter activities.
“They provided a range of both group and one to one activities for people and spoke with us in an enthusiastic manner about their role.” from the report
Positive leadership
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the manager and leadership. The home had plans for refurbishment, person-centred care and stronger community links.
“People, their relatives and staff spoke positively about their leadership of the home.” from the report
Care plans were not always complete
needs fixingSome records lacked important information or contained contradictions and inaccuracies. This could make it harder for staff, including agency staff, to provide consistent personalised care.
“People's records did not always contain sufficient information about their needs and how these should be met.” from the report
Medicine records needed improvement
needs fixingOne medicines record was not signed, controlled drug records did not match the stock, and staff did not always record why as-required medicines were given. The home took action and planned further checks.
“We checked 12 people's medicines administration records (MARs). These included the person's photograph, date of birth and information about any allergies they might have.” from the report
Moving and handling practice
seriousInspectors saw two staff using inappropriate moving and handling techniques. One was an agency worker, and both staff were arranged to receive further training.
“We did however; observe two staff using inappropriate moving and handling techniques.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every care plan contains accurate, detailed and personalised instructions?
- 02How are medicines, topical creams and controlled drug records now checked for errors?
- 03How do you make sure staff use the correct moving and handling techniques, including agency staff?
- 04How are decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions recorded?
- 05What is the current process for responding to weight loss, blood sugar readings and other changes in health?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the home, with visits on 11 and 13 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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 Woodley Grange
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 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
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.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.