CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodstock House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had enough consistent staff, suitable safeguarding and recruitment checks, accurate medicine records and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found committed managers, supportive leadership, regular quality checks and good communication with people, staff and health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and strong management, with this visit focused only on Safe and Well-led.
Inspectors visited on 30 April 2021. They observed care, spoke with eight people, a relative, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe. Inspectors found enough consistent staff, suitable safeguarding and recruitment checks, accurate medicine records, and good infection control arrangements. People were supported to make choices, take managed risks and build independent living skills.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Managers were described as committed and approachable, with systems to monitor quality and learn from incidents.
This was a planned inspection of Safe and Well-led only. The other key question ratings were carried forward from earlier comprehensive inspections, so they were not reassessed in this report.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe and could speak to staff when they had a problem. Staff knew people well and understood how to recognise safeguarding concerns.
“I trust staff; I feel safe here.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to make choices, take managed risks and develop skills for more independent living. They were involved in their own risk management plans.
“People were very much involved in developing their own risk management plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
The report describes care that was individual to each person and aimed at their goals. People said staff treated them kindly and with respect.
“Brilliant, lots of support here. Everyone treats you with kindness and respect.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team was described as committed, approachable and supportive. Staff said they felt valued and could suggest improvements.
“Without exception they told us they felt supported and valued by the management team.” from the report
Good medicine systems
Medicine records were accurate and checked regularly. People were involved in decisions about taking medicines and were supported towards self-medicating.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were accurate and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative to develop their independent living skills and work towards moving on?
- 02How would my relative be involved in decisions about taking medicines, including any move towards self-medicating?
- 03How are managed risks and changes in my relative's needs recorded and reviewed?
- 04How would you help my relative keep in contact with important people, including visits from family or pets?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a planned focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 May 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with good leadership across all five areas.
The inspection was announced and took place on 23 and 26 April 2018. Inspectors spoke with seven people, three relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files, complaints, training records and quality checks.
The inspectors found that people were safe, with enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems and updated risk assessments. Staff understood safeguarding and how to respond to risks such as self-harm. People received support from trained staff and had access to healthcare.
People described staff as kind, respectful and caring. Staff supported people to make choices, keep their independence and take part in college, work, volunteering and community activities. Care plans were personalised and regularly updated.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report found an open culture, approachable management and quality checks that supported improvements.
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely by trained staff. Inspectors also found enough staff to meet people's assessed needs.
“Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy and dignity and offer reassurance when someone became upset.
“On both days of the inspection there was a calm and welcoming atmosphere in the home, punctuated with moments of singing and laughter.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences and goals. Staff supported people to build independence and achieve goals such as college, volunteering and moving to their own accommodation.
“Care plans were available to staff, up to date, regularly reviewed and up dated by the management to ensure they reflected people's individual needs, preferences, recovery goals and outcomes.” from the report
Open leadership
Management was visible and approachable. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback, and quality checks were used to identify improvements.
“Quality monitoring systems and processes were in place and up to date.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's specific risks, including any risk of self-harm or behaviour that could place people at risk?
- 02How would you support my relative to take medicines safely, and how would you review their medicines if their needs changed?
- 03What staffing would be available for my relative, and how would you increase staffing if their needs changed?
- 04How would you support my relative's personal goals, such as college, volunteering, activities or moving to more independent accommodation?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care reviews, complaints and decisions about future or end of life wishes?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service and covered all five CQC questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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.
Every inspection of Woodstock House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 August 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,020 to £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.