CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodley House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including protective equipment, testing, cleaning, isolation and social distancing.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Woodley House Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control practice during the coronavirus response.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 1 December 2020. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
Inspectors were assured that the home was following shielding and social distancing rules, admitting people safely, using protective equipment properly, and accessing testing for people and staff.
They also found support for people who needed to self-isolate, restricted movement between the three buildings, regular cleaning, updated infection control training, and help for people to keep in touch with relatives.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a standard rating for each of the five areas.
Protective equipment
Protective equipment was readily available and staff used it in line with guidance.
“Personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available for staff and staff wore it in line with current guidance.” from the report
Managing isolation
People who needed to self-isolate were supported, and movement between the three buildings was restricted to reduce infection risk.
“People who were required to self isolate were supported to do so, movement between the three buildings had been restricted” from the report
Testing arrangements
The registered manager had arranged whole-home testing and sought healthcare support when people could not consent to testing.
“The registered manager had registered for whole home testing and, when people were not able to consent to testing, appropriate support had been sought from healthcare professionals.” from the report
Cleaning and training
Cleaning schedules were in place, buildings had designated cleaners, and staff had completed further infection control training.
“Further infection prevention and control training which reflected current best practice guidance had been sought by the registered manager and completed by staff.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to keep in touch with loved ones through video calls, and relatives were contacted about changes.
“People were supported to keep in contact with loved ones through video calls.” from the report
Further development advised
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention and control resources did inspectors ask the home to use, and what changes were made afterwards?
- 02How are whole-home testing and testing for people who cannot consent managed now?
- 03How does the home support people who need to self-isolate?
- 04How are cleaning schedules checked across all three buildings?
- 05How will people keep in contact with relatives when video calls are not suitable?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; it was not a full assessment of the service and the home was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 2021 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, March 2019
Woodley House Limited rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a few issues needing prompt attention.
This was an unannounced, scheduled inspection on 21 February 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience spoke with 12 people, one relative and six staff. They observed care and checked care, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were relaxed, happy and involved in their care. Staff supported people to make choices, stay independent and take part in community activities.
Inspectors found some shortfalls. These included missed opportunities for staff to engage with people, one missing protocol for an as-required medicine, and a person not being supervised as instructed while eating. Managers said they would address these matters.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm relationships between people and staff. Staff understood people's complex needs and supported their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff were very caring in their approach and showed understanding of people's complex needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs, preferences, communication and possible behavioural triggers.
“Care plans were detailed and provided a good level of information about how staff could best support people.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to join activities and use local facilities according to their interests. Some people volunteered in local shops.
“People were supported to access the local community and engage in a range of activities based on their interests.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used regular audits and an action plan to identify improvements. They responded straight away to issues raised during the inspection.
“A wide range of quality audits were completed on a monthly basis and learning identified.” from the report
Staff engagement when busy
needs fixingInspectors saw missed opportunities for staff to engage with people while staff were doing routine tasks or taking people on trips. The manager said staffing deployment would be reviewed.
“During the inspection, we observed some missed opportunities for engaging with people when staff were busy with routine tasks” from the report
As-required medicine protocol
needs fixingOne medicine prescribed to be given as required did not have a protocol to support consistent administration. The manager agreed to address this immediately.
“We found there wasn't a protocol in place to ensure the consistent administration of one medicine for a person” from the report
Mealtime supervision
needs fixingStaff did not keep a presence in the dining room while one person was eating, despite instructions that the person should be observed. The manager said staff would be reminded.
“We observed that staff did not maintain a presence in the dining room when a person was eating.” from the report
Responses to people
needs fixingInspectors saw one inappropriate response to a person's behaviour and one occasion when a staff member dismissed a person's request. Managers said both issues would be addressed.
“However, we observed one staff member did not react appropriately to a person's behaviour on one occasion.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people are engaged with when staff are busy with meals or accompanying others on trips?
- 02What protocol is now in place for the as-required medicine mentioned in the report?
- 03How do you check that people who need observation while eating are supervised throughout the meal?
- 04What training or supervision followed the incidents where staff responded inappropriately or dismissed a person's request?
- 05How are families now involved in care planning?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection that looked at the overall service and rated all five CQC areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
Every inspection of Woodley House Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.