CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodspring House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective safeguarding systems, enough staff, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines management. The home also had arrangements for emergencies and evacuation.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had assessments and regularly reviewed care plans. Staff received training and support, and people were helped with eating, drinking, healthcare and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were offered choices, their privacy and dignity were promoted, and they were supported to remain independent and keep in touch with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was based on people's preferences, life histories and interests. The home offered a wide range of activities, responded to complaints through its stated process and provided end of life support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff described the home as well managed and approachable. Audits, incidents, meetings and surveys were used to monitor quality and improve care.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 February 2019. One inspector and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care and management records.
The home was supporting 27 people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and a clean environment. Staff had relevant training and worked with health professionals to support people's health.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans recorded people's preferences, activities were available in the home and local community, and relatives said concerns were dealt with promptly.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection, published in September 2016, was also rated Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff respond promptly to people and call bells. Staff had time to provide care without rushing.
“Staff had time to spend with people and did not need to rush their care or support.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferences. Staff could explain how they supported people in ways that suited them.
“Care plans detailed people`s preferences, likes and dislikes.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, used their preferred names and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff were respectful towards people they supported, ensuring that preferred names were used, and checking with people first before providing them with care.” from the report
Activities and family links
People could take part in activities in the home and local community. Visitors were welcomed and there were no restrictions on visiting times.
“There was a wide range of activities provided to people and these included exercises, musical entertainments, trips to local points of interest, card games or quizzes.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home used incidents and quality checks to identify learning and improve care.
“Accidents and incidents were used as an opportunity for learning and improving.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you review care plans when a person's health, mobility, nutrition or communication needs change?
- 02How do you decide when someone needs medicines prescribed on an as-needed basis, and how is this recorded?
- 03Which activities and trips would suit my relative, and how would you support them to take part?
- 04How would you support my relative to remain independent while managing any risks?
- 05How would you record and respect my relative's wishes about end of life care?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection that looked at the overall quality of the home, the premises and care provided, and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Woodspring House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with some concerns about medicines, fire doors and staffing calculations.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 September 2016. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the manager and the provider. They reviewed care records, recruitment checks, medicines records, training information and quality monitoring.
The overall rating was Good. All five areas were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff on the inspection day, kind and respectful care, suitable training, good food and support with health needs. People had activities suited to their interests and felt able to raise concerns.
There were some shortfalls. One person missed two medicines, although the medicines record said they had been given. Some fire doors did not close properly, and staffing numbers were not calculated using a recognised method based on people's individual needs. The home took action on several issues during or just after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people gently and respectfully. People and relatives described staff as caring and compassionate.
“People received care from kind, caring and compassionate staff who had received enough training to enable them to provide people with good quality care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care was based on people's needs, preferences and choices. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and personalities.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
Activities and quality of life
People could take part in varied activities and outings, including one-to-one activities for those who preferred not to join groups.
“There was as strong culture within the home of providing people with activities and experiences that were important to them and which helped to enhance their quality of life.” from the report
Open leadership
People, relatives and staff found the management approachable. Their suggestions were sought and some were acted on.
“There was clear leadership at all levels, which demonstrated an open and inclusive culture.” from the report
Missed medicines
seriousOne person was not given two morning medicines three days before the inspection, even though the record said they had been given. The manager could not explain why, but added an extra check.
“Twenty seven out of the 28 people who lived at Woodspring House had received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Fire doors
seriousTwo first-floor doors had their automatic closing mechanisms switched off. An office door also could not close easily, which could have allowed fire to spread.
“This meant that if the fire alarm system was activated, these doors would not close to help prevent the risk of the spread of a fire.” from the report
Staffing calculations
needs fixingStaffing levels were based on observation rather than a recognised method linked to people's individual needs. The provider was asked to look into a more robust approach.
“We recommend that the provider finds out more about using a robust recognised method to calculate the number of staff required to work on each shift based on people's individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Bedroom locking decisions
needs fixingMost bedrooms were locked from the outside at night, but records did not show that the Mental Capacity Act principles had been followed for this decision. The manager agreed to assess people's capacity and seek advice where needed.
“There was no evidence within people's care records that the principles of the MCA had been followed when making this decision on behalf of people.” from the report
- 01What extra checks are now used to make sure every medicine has been given and recorded correctly?
- 02Have all fire doors and automatic closing mechanisms been checked and kept working?
- 03How do you now calculate the number of staff needed on each shift, especially in the early evening?
- 04How are decisions about locking bedroom doors recorded and reviewed under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 05How are gaps in applicants' previous employment now checked during recruitment?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and reviewing care, staffing, medicines, recruitment and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 2016 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 Woodspring House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.