Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Woodstock Care Home Limited

Goodpublished 8 April 2026, 6 months ago

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

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2018

Woodstock Care Home was rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because some risks and moving practices were not consistently managed safely.

Inspectors visited on 5 and 6 September 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They also observed care and checked care records, recruitment files and quality monitoring information.

The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found kind staff, enough staff, good support with food, drink and healthcare, varied activities and strong leadership.

Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Toiletries and prescribed creams were not always stored safely. Inspectors also saw unsafe moving and handling practice, including a faulty wheelchair brake that had not been checked before a transfer. The home took immediate action on the issues identified.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and personal care

    Inspectors found that staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect.

    “People were supported and cared for by staff who were very kind and compassionate and who knew people very well.” from the report
  • Enough staff

    People and relatives said staff were available and responded quickly. Inspectors saw staff meet people's needs and spend time talking with them.

    “There were enough staff to meet people's needs and to spend time with them to provide them with stimulation.” from the report
  • Activities and community links

    The home offered daily activities, including reminiscence, quizzes, crafts, music and visits from local groups. People could also take part in gardening and collecting eggs.

    “Excellent links with the community had been formed for the benefit of people living in the home and plans were in place to develop these further.” from the report
  • Good leadership and learning

    The registered manager promoted an open culture and used audits, incident reviews, staff training and new technology to monitor and improve care.

    “Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care provided to people.” from the report
  • End-of-life support

    People's wishes were considered and healthcare professionals were involved. Relatives described the support at the end of life as compassionate and attentive.

    “People's preferences and choices had been sought and respected in relation to their end of their life wishes.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Toiletries and prescribed creams

    serious

    Some toiletries and prescribed creams were accessible in bedroom en-suite cabinets. This could have placed people at risk of swallowing, misusing or tampering with them.

    “Not all risks to people's safety had been adequately assessed.” from the report
  • Moving and handling practice

    serious

    Two staff used unsafe techniques during a transfer. They did not check a faulty wheelchair brake and encouraged the person to hold a frame that could move.

    “During this transfer we saw one side of the wheelchair move.” from the report
  • Fire doors

    serious

    Two bedroom fire doors did not shut properly. The registered manager arranged for them to be repaired during the inspection.

    “Two people's bedroom doors would not shut properly when released from an opening position.” from the report
  • Staff records and checks

    needs fixing

    Some staff files did not contain full employment histories, and two staff started before all required character references had arrived. A risk assessment was in place and they were not left unsupervised until checks were complete.

    “Two of the three staff files we checked did not contain a full employment history.” from the report
  • Moving and handling competency checks

    needs fixing

    The registered manager said formal checks of staff competency, including moving and handling, were not taking place. They agreed to introduce them after the inspection.

    “The registered manager told us that no formal assessments of staff competency took place such as for personal care or moving and handling.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are toiletries and prescribed creams now stored for people who may not understand what they are?
  2. 02How do you check wheelchairs and other moving equipment before transfers?
  3. 03What formal competency checks do staff now complete for moving and handling and personal care?
  4. 04Have all bedroom fire doors been checked and repaired, and how are these checks recorded?
  5. 05How do you make sure staff recruitment records contain full employment histories and all required references?

This inspection covered the premises and care provided, and assessed all five key questions; the first day was unannounced and the overall rating remained Good compared with January 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 2018 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 Woodstock Care Home Limited

2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. October 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Woodstock Care Home Limited →

  2. February 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. February 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2012.

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

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.

See live-in carers near NorfolkProfiles, 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.