CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodside Farm House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs, safe medicines systems and suitable infection control. Some medicines instructions were not dated, and the home agreed to address this immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support with their health, nutrition, communication and independence. Most staff had completed Positive Behaviour Support training, while further training had been booked for others.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management arrangements, regular checks and an open culture. Relatives and staff said managers were approachable and listened to concerns and suggestions.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Good; Woodside Farm House had safe, effective and well-led care, with some staffing, medicines and training issues to monitor.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 8 November 2021. Inspectors looked at concerns about staffing and medicines, and also checked infection control, risks, care records and management. They observed care, reviewed records and spoke with staff, managers, relatives and a health professional.
There were not enough permanent staff to cover every shift, but the home used regular agency staff. Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Medicines were managed safely overall, although some instructions for medicines given when needed were not dated. Staff training was generally suitable, but some staff were still waiting for behaviour support training.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their earlier ratings were carried forward.
Personalised support
Staff knew people well and supported their communication, choices, dignity and independence. People were helped to take part in activities and use local services.
“Staff knew people well and demonstrated an understanding of people's individual care, behavioural and communication needs.” from the report
Safe staffing arrangements
Although there were vacancies among permanent staff, regular agency staff were booked to provide continuity. Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.
“This ensured shifts were covered by consistent staff.” from the report
Good risk and care planning
Risks were identified and reviewed, and care and behaviour support plans gave staff clear guidance. Incidents were reviewed so the service could learn from them.
“Care and behaviour support plans were accurate and kept under regular review, with the involvement of the person and their family.” from the report
Open management
The home had clear lines of responsibility and regular quality checks. Relatives and staff said managers were approachable and acted on feedback.
“People and staff had easy access to the registered manager or other senior support staff when needed.” from the report
Permanent staff vacancies
needs fixingThe home did not have enough permanent staff to cover all shifts and was recruiting support workers. It relied on block-booked agency staff, although inspectors found shifts were covered.
“The registered manager had identified there were insufficient numbers of permanent staff to cover all shifts.” from the report
Behaviour support training
minorSixteen of 24 staff had completed the relevant training, while six more were booked to attend. The report says delays had occurred during the COVID-19 period.
“Six staff were booked to attend this training in December 2021.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorSome relatives felt communication with staff had reduced after staffing changes. Management agreed to address this immediately.
“Relatives were mindful that there had been staffing changes within the service and felt that due to this communication with staff had decreased.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff vacancies are there now, and how often are agency staff being used?
- 02Have all staff completed Positive Behaviour Support training, including the six staff booked for training in December 2021?
- 03Are all instructions for medicines given when needed now dated and clearly marked with their review date?
- 04How do you keep relatives informed when staffing changes affect communication?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 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, August 2021
Rated Good; the home had improved from Requires Improvement and inspectors found previous infection control problems had been addressed.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 July 2021. One inspector observed care, checked records for two people, spoke with two staff and managers, and reviewed training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found the home was clean, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and people were supported with personalised care and community activities.
The previous inspection had found problems with staff wearing masks and checks for visitors during COVID-19. At this inspection, the home had introduced improved visiting procedures and PPE arrangements. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
This inspection did not assess Effective or Caring. Their ratings were carried forward from an earlier inspection when calculating the overall rating.
Community involvement
People were supported to take part in activities they chose and, where able, to use public transport and go into the community independently.
“People were supported to take part in community activities of their choice and interest.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Records were accurate and only trained staff gave medicines.
“We saw there was safe medicines storage, administration records, and medicines were only given to people by trained staff.” from the report
Positive culture
Inspectors found good relationships between staff and people, with care tailored to individual needs and preferences.
“There was a positive and person-centred culture throughout the service.” from the report
Improved infection control
The home had acted on earlier concerns about PPE and visitor checks. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed.
“At this inspection we found the provider had taken action to improve how people were protected from the risk of infection.” from the report
Previous infection control failures
seriousAt the April 2021 inspection, staff were not consistently wearing masks and visitor COVID-19 checks were not robust. These issues had led to a breach, although inspectors found they had been addressed by this inspection.
“When we inspected the service in April 2021 we found staff were not always wearing surgical face masks.” from the report
Provider information was not submitted
minorThe provider did not complete the required information return before this inspection. Inspectors took this into account when making their judgements.
“The provider did not complete the required Provider Information Return.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorThe home used agency staff while a recruitment programme was under way. The report says agency staff were block booked to provide continuity and that staffing levels were sufficient.
“The service used agency staff to support the staff team.” from the report
- 01How are PPE use, visitor checks and infection control procedures monitored now?
- 02How many regular agency staff work at the home, and how are they introduced to each person's needs?
- 03How do you support each person to develop independence and achieve their personal goals?
- 04How are people's communication methods, including Makaton or other individual approaches, kept up to date?
- 05How can families see the results of audits, complaints and quality improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led only; Effective and Caring were not assessed in this visit and their ratings were carried forward from an earlier inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 August 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.
Every inspection of Woodside Farm House
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.