CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodside View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found examples of good practice. Visitors were checked on arrival, staff had regular infection control and PPE training, and people had regularly reviewed COVID-19 risk assessments.
The home was assured to be using PPE safely, supporting testing, managing possible outbreaks, and keeping its infection control policy up to date. Visits were being supported in line with current guidance.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four CQC questions.
Visitor checks
Visitors were checked when they arrived, and visiting arrangements followed current guidance.
“Current government guidelines in relation to COVID-19 were being followed by staff and visitors to reduce the risk of infection to people living at the home.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received regular infection prevention and control training, including training on using PPE correctly.
“Staff had received regular training about infection prevention and control including specific training about personal protective equipment (PPE) and how to use it correctly.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
People had individual COVID-19 risk assessments, which were reviewed regularly to identify and address factors that could make them more vulnerable.
“People living at the home had individual COVID-19 risk assessments which were regularly reviewed.” from the report
Cleaning and hygiene
Cleaning had increased, frequently touched surfaces were cleaned regularly, and hand sanitiser was available around the home.
“Cleaning had increased during the COVID-19 pandemic and frequently touched surfaces such as light switches were cleaned regularly throughout the day to reduce the risk of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection on 17 January 2022?
- 02How are visitors currently checked and supported to visit people living at the home?
- 03How often are individual infection or COVID-19 risk assessments reviewed?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures when staff are absent because of COVID-19?
- 05What are the home's current arrangements for PPE, testing and managing infection outbreaks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other CQC questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 February 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with only minor areas for improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with five people living at the home, two relatives and six staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training and good support with health, food and drinks.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people well, followed their care plans and offered activities. The home had a clear complaints process and managers used checks and feedback to improve care.
At the previous inspection in July 2016, the provider had breached two regulations about mental capacity assessments and quality assurance. Inspectors found that both issues had been addressed by this inspection.
Enough staff
Staffing levels were based on people's individual needs. Inspectors saw call bells answered promptly and two staff used when people needed help to move.
“There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived here.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and medicines were ordered, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff also supported people to understand their medicines.
“People's medicines were managed and given safely. Where possible, people understood what their medicines were for and told us they were involved in the process.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were attentive and knew people's histories, interests and communication needs. People were treated with dignity and involved in everyday decisions.
“The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed and staff spoke to people in a caring and respectful manner.” from the report
Detailed care planning
Care plans included people's support needs, preferences and histories. Staff followed the plans and reviewed them with people where possible.
“Care plans gave detail about the support needs of people.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had introduced regular audits and improvement plans. Inspectors found that the quality assurance problems identified at the previous inspection had been addressed.
“Regular weekly and monthly checks on the quality of service provision took place and results were actioned to improve the standard of care people received.” from the report
Meal variety
minorSome people wanted more variety at mealtimes. The report linked this to the menu being at the end of its summer cycle.
“Some people felt that more variety would make mealtimes more interesting.” from the report
Visitor feedback
minorInspectors found that some visitors were unsure whether they could discuss the person's care with staff. The manager said they would look at how visitors could be encouraged to share preferences.
“We did note that some opportunities to gather feedback had been missed.” from the report
- 01How do you now provide enough variety at mealtimes, and how do you record each person's food preferences?
- 02How are visitors encouraged to share information about a person's routines, preferences and care?
- 03Have the improvements to mental capacity assessments remained in place?
- 04What regular quality checks are now carried out, and how are actions followed up?
- 05How are activities matched to each person's interests, including people with dementia or sensory needs?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and providing an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 October 2017 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 View
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.