Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Woodside Court

Goodpublished 31 August 2022, 4 years ago

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

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People's risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment and safeguarding were managed safely. Window restrictors had been installed after a problem identified at the previous inspection.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed and staff had relevant training and support. People received food based on their choices and were supported with their physical and mental health.
Caring?
Good
People liked the staff and were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's backgrounds, preferences, gender, sexuality and cultural needs.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and interests, and people were involved in reviewing them. Activities were available, although one person wanted more activities.
Well-led?
Good
The home had improved its management and checking systems since the previous inspection. However, inspectors said the quality monitoring systems were not always as effective as they needed to be.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, August 2022

Woodside Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some areas for improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection on 2 August 2022. One inspector spoke with three people and three staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and management records. The inspection also looked at infection prevention and control.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable checks on the building and people's risks, safe medicines management, enough staff and appropriate safeguarding arrangements.

People were involved in their care, treated with dignity and supported to stay independent. They received food they chose and support with their physical and mental health. Inspectors noted that quality checks were in place but were not always as effective as they needed to be.

The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in November 2019. The earlier problem with window restrictors had been fixed, and the home was no longer in breach of that regulation.

What inspectors praised
  • Safe medicines

    Medicines were recorded clearly, given as prescribed and checked through regular audits. Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give them.

    “Medicines records were clear and accurate and our checks of medicines stocks and records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful staff

    People had good relationships with staff and said staff listened to them. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.

    “People were treated well. People liked the staff who supported them and developed good relationships with them.” from the report
  • Personalised support

    People were involved in developing and reviewing care plans. Staff understood people's mental health needs and personal preferences.

    “People had care plans which were personalised to their needs, preferences and interests.” from the report
  • Improved management checks

    The home had improved its audits since the last inspection. Checks covered medicines, care records, staff, training, infection control and the premises.

    “Audits included checks of medicines, care records, staff records, staff training and support, infection control and the premises.” from the report
  • Choice of food

    People could choose food that suited their preferences and cultural backgrounds. Alternatives were available and the menu was reviewed using people's feedback.

    “People told us the menu was based on their preferences, including food of people's cultural choice, and alternatives were available.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Quality checks were not fully effective

    needs fixing

    Inspectors found that the home's systems for checking care quality were in place but did not always work as well as needed.

    “The provider had systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided although they were not always as effective as they needed to be.” from the report
  • More activities wanted

    minor

    Activities included outings, meals and crafts, but one person said they would like more activities. The home said activities were being increased after being reduced during the pandemic.

    “Activities were provided by staff but one person told us they would like more on offer.” from the report
  • Target weights needed to be clearer

    needs fixing

    People's weights were monitored, but the provider said it would make each person's target weight clearer so staff could give the right support.

    “The provider told us they would improve this by making each person's target weight clear so people received the support they needed.” from the report
  • Gaps in work histories

    minor

    Inspectors found some gaps in staff employment histories. The provider said it would investigate all gaps in future recruitment.

    “We found some gaps in people's work history and the provider told us they would explore all gaps going forwards.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What specific improvements have been made to the quality checks since this inspection?
  2. 02How many activities are now offered, and how are residents' views used to decide what is provided?
  3. 03How are each person's target weight and support needs recorded and reviewed?
  4. 04How do you now check and resolve gaps in applicants' work histories?
  5. 05Are the window restrictors still checked regularly and recorded as working?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control, to check improvement since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 August 2022 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2019

Woodside Court was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good care but serious window safety risks and weak quality checks.

This was an unannounced planned inspection on 15 October 2019. One inspector spoke with three people and two staff, reviewed care records and management records, and requested further information from the home after the visit.

The home provided accommodation and care for up to 10 people with mental health needs. Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness and respect, involved in their care, supported to maintain their health, and given their medicines safely.

However, at least two first-floor windows were not restricted. People could access these windows, creating an obvious risk of falling and serious injury. The home's checks had not identified the problem. Inspectors also found that quality monitoring was not effective enough.

The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    People said staff were caring and kind. Staff understood people's preferences and supported privacy, dignity and independence.

    “Staff treated people as individuals and respected their privacy and lifestyle choices.” from the report
  • Medicines managed safely

    Staff were trained to give medicines, records were kept, and people received medicines as prescribed.

    “People received their medicines when they were due.” from the report
  • Good health support

    Staff worked with external health professionals and followed their recommendations. Inspectors found that support had a positive effect on people's health and wellbeing.

    “Staff followed the recommendations of healthcare professionals involved in the people's care to make sure people received appropriate and consistent care.” from the report
  • People involved in care

    People helped shape their support through care planning, keyworker meetings and resident meetings. They could make day-to-day choices where they had capacity.

    “People were actively involved in decisions about their care and support.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unrestricted first-floor windows

    serious

    At least two large windows could be opened fully, including in areas people could access. Inspectors said this created an obvious risk of falling and serious injury.

    “This posed an obvious risk to people living there and staff of falling from a window and being seriously injured.” from the report
  • Safety checks missed the risk

    serious

    The home's audits and risk assessment did not identify or properly address the window danger. This led to a breach of Regulation 12.

    “The provider's audits had not identified that people were at risk of serious injury because not all the windows in the home had been restricted.” from the report
  • Limited activities

    needs fixing

    One person said the home could offer more activities. Inspectors found a lot of free time in the weekly timetable and said more could be done in the home and community.

    “We felt that more could be done to engage people in activities both in the home and in the community which reflected their interests.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all windows that people can access now been fitted with restrictors, and how often are they checked?
  2. 02What changes have been made to the home's safety audits and risk assessments since inspectors found the window risk?
  3. 03How will you make sure keyworker meetings are held and recorded consistently?
  4. 04What new activities have been introduced in the home and community since inspectors found there was a lot of free time?
  5. 05What evidence can you show that the action plan requested by CQC has been completed and checked?

This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement and the other three areas were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Woodside Court

5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Woodside Court →

  2. November 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Woodside Court →

  3. April 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. November 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2016Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. September 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. August 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. July 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 July 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon

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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
Marie-anne B., about Carla A.
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
Bianca V., about Terry S.
See live-in carers near CroydonProfiles, 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.