CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodwell House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed. This included the use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning, social distancing, visiting controls and an up-to-date infection-control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control measures during the pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 11 November 2020 as part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes. The visit was announced.
They found clear steps to reduce infection risks. The home was exceptionally clean, staff used protective equipment correctly, and cleaning checks were carried out. Staff had training and enough protective equipment.
Staff helped people understand protective equipment by using simple information and giving them time to examine it. People were supported to keep in touch with their families by phone, video calls and some outdoor visits.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. The Safe question was also inspected but not rated. This report does not assess the other four questions.
Infection control
Inspectors found clear measures to prevent and manage the spread of infection. The premises were exceptionally clean, with enhanced cleaning programmes and checks.
“Staff carried out enhanced cleaning programmes and checks to reduce risk and avoid the potential spread of infection.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff used protective equipment safely and had received infection-control training. The provider had enough supplies.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and were confident in the safe use of PPE.” from the report
Supporting understanding
Staff explained protective equipment to people in ways that helped reduce anxiety. They used easy-read and picture-based information and allowed people to examine the equipment.
“In addition, staff gave each person time to touch and examine the PPE before staff began to wear it.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to stay in touch with relatives through phone and video calls. Some outdoor meetings had also taken place.
“People were supported to keep in touch with families.” from the report
Staff continuity
Staff received regular support, and many had worked at the service for years. No agency staff had been used since the start of the pandemic.
“Staff received regular ongoing support and many staff had worked at the service for years.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently managed, and what infection-control steps must visitors follow?
- 02How often are enhanced cleaning programmes and checks carried out?
- 03How do staff explain protective equipment and infection-control changes to each person?
- 04How can people keep in touch with their families, including visits and video or phone calls?
- 05What testing arrangements are currently in place for people using the home and for staff?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the home was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 2020 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, June 2018
Woodwell House rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The unannounced inspection took place on 8 May 2018. Inspectors reviewed three support plans, observed care, spoke with one relative and five staff, and checked records including fire and quality audits. People were spoken with, but their communication needs meant they could not give detailed verbal feedback.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, suitable health and nutrition support, kind relationships and activities matched to people's needs.
The previous inspection rated the service Requires Improvement and found two breaches. At this inspection, inspectors found that conditions on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were being met and that quality checks had improved. The ratings for Effective and Well-led therefore improved to Good.
Safe medicines support
Medicines were kept securely, stock was checked and administration records were monitored for errors or omissions.
“People received safe support with their medicines; these were stored securely and stock checks taken regularly.” from the report
Personalised care
Support plans covered communication, personal care, behaviour and individual goals. Staff understood what could make each person anxious and how to support them.
“People had clear person centred support plans in place.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm and respectful way. Families could visit and remain involved where appropriate.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in varied activities and to develop everyday skills, such as preparing snacks.
“People had opportunities to take part in a wide range of activities in accordance with their needs and wishes.” from the report
Improved oversight
Quality checks had improved since the last inspection and were being used to identify issues and make changes.
“Regular checks were made of the environment, medicines and care plans. These were used effectively to identify issues and make improvements.” from the report
Risk assessment wording
minorOne risk assessment suggested that physical restraint might be used outside the home, although senior staff said this was not happening. They agreed that the wording was misleading and said they would review it.
“the wording in the risk assessment was misleading and told us they would review it.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the risk assessment wording about physical restraint, and what training do staff now have on this?
- 02How will you communicate with my relative if they cannot give detailed verbal feedback?
- 03How will you support my relative's individual communication methods, including any use of BSL, Makaton or picture-based communication?
- 04What activities and daily goals would be available for my relative, and how would their choices be recorded?
- 05How will you keep me involved in care planning and decisions if my relative cannot make a particular decision?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key questions, including observations, conversations and checks of three support plans and service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 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 Woodwell House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
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 £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.