CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodley Hall Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with some further development suggested.
This was an announced inspection on 03 November 2020. It was part of a CQC review of infection prevention and control in care homes during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found systems for recording visitors, taking temperatures, testing staff and residents, and supporting new residents to self-isolate. They were assured that the home was using PPE safely and managing infection risks.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a standard CQC rating for the home.
Visitor controls
The home monitored visitors, took their temperatures and kept a record of who entered the building.
“Temperature checks were taken for all people visiting the home and details logged to ensure the home had a record of who had entered the premises.” from the report
Testing and isolation
Staff and residents were tested regularly. New residents were supported to self-isolate for 14 days and had further testing.
“Where people were admitted to the home they were supported to self-isolate for 14 days and further testing was undertaken.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed shielding and distancing rules, and had arrangements to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not describe this as a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How are visitors currently monitored and how are visitor records kept?
- 02How do you test staff and residents, and what happens if someone tests positive?
- 03How do you support new residents to isolate safely when they first arrive?
- 04How do staff use PPE and manage any infection outbreak?
- 05What changes have you made after being signposted to resources to develop your infection prevention and control approach?
This was a focused thematic inspection of infection prevention and control and Safe only; it did not rate the other four key questions or the service overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staffing, refurbishment and activity arrangements to keep under review.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 29 March 2018. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicine, training, quality and safety records.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and respect, and supported with their health, nutrition and daily choices. Medicines were managed safely, care plans were personalised and staff had appropriate training and support.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, and the report found no serious risks or concerns.
Positive views of care
People and relatives said they were happy with the care and described staff as kind and caring.
“People and relatives told us they were happy with the care provided at the home.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Only trained staff gave medicines, and the inspectors found the medicine records accurate.
“Medicines were managed safely. Only trained staff administered people's medicines and accurate records were maintained.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and risks. They were reviewed monthly and updated when circumstances changed.
“Care plans were evaluated monthly so that they remained relevant to people's current circumstances.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider carried out regular checks of medicines, care records and health and safety. Senior management also carried out checks.
“The provider continued to have a structured approach to quality assurance.” from the report
Staff wanted more cover
minorStaff said it would be useful to have more staff, although inspectors found the staffing level safe and appropriate for people's needs at the time.
“Although staff felt more staff would be useful, staffing levels at the time of out inspection were appropriate to meet people's needs.” from the report
Some refurbishment needed
minorThe home was clean and maintained, but some areas, including carpets, needed refurbishment. The report says plans were in place to address this.
“Some areas of the home were in need of refurbishment, such as the carpets.” from the report
Activity co-ordinator absent
minorThere was no dedicated activity co-ordinator during the inspection. Care staff and the registered manager provided some afternoon activities while the co-ordinator was away.
“At the time of our inspection the home did not have a dedicated activity co-ordinator as they were currently absent from work.” from the report
- 01How many staff are on duty now, and how do you adjust staffing when people's needs change?
- 02What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, particularly to carpets and other areas?
- 03Is the dedicated activity co-ordinator now back at work, and what activities are currently available?
- 04How often are care plans reviewed and updated when a person's needs or risks change?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns and take part in reviews of their family member's care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the inspectors spoke with four people and two relatives and reviewed care, medicine, training, quality and safety records. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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 Woodley Hall Care Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 May 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.
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Newcastle upon Tyne
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 £950 to £1,160 a week. 30 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.