CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woody Point
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found risks involving the perimeter, a pond, mould, cleanliness, the external areas and care records. Medicines were stored and given safely, and there were enough staff during the inspection visits.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The environment needed repairs, cleaning and adaptation. Staff supported people with eating, drinking and healthcare, but records about people's choices and best-interest decisions were not always complete.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Inspectors observed respectful and supportive interactions and discreet personal care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says people's care needs and wishes were generally reflected in their records, but some information was missing.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks and audits did not identify the problems found by inspectors. Staffing pressures had also affected training, supervision, meetings, care-plan audits and management oversight.
What inspectors found, August 2023
Woody Point rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safety, environment and management weaknesses, although staff were kind and medicines were handled safely.
This was an unannounced focused inspection after CQC received concerns about people's care. Inspectors visited on three dates, spoke with people, staff, managers, a relative and professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and quality records.
The home was not always safe or effective. Inspectors found risks around the outside perimeter, a pond, mould, cleanliness, accessibility and care records. Staffing levels were enough during the visits, but staff changes had affected people's routines and the registered manager had been covering care shifts instead of overseeing the home.
Staff were respectful and supportive. People were helped with food, drink, healthcare and medicines. However, systems for checking quality, managing risks and keeping records accurate were not strong enough.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in March 2019, to Requires Improvement. CQC found breaches of Regulations 12 and 17 and will monitor the provider's improvement work.
Respectful support
Inspectors found a calm atmosphere and respectful interactions. Personal care was provided discreetly, protecting people's dignity and privacy.
“There was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the service. Staff were respectful and supportive in their interactions with people.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored securely and given safely. Staff were trained, their competence was checked, and records showed people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines were kept secure and administered safely by staff who were trained and had their competencies routinely checked.” from the report
Health support
People were supported with eating and drinking, specialist diets and healthcare reviews. Referrals to specialist professionals were made when needed.
“Where concerns were identified, for example with changes in people's care needs, referrals were made to specialist teams such as dieticians and speech and language therapists.” from the report
Open response
The management team accepted the concerns and submitted an action plan. Inspectors noted their commitment to making improvements.
“The registered manager and the provider's representative were open and honest about the shortfalls at the service.” from the report
Unsafe external areas
seriousThe perimeter was not secure at the time of inspection and was close to a railway line. A pond had not been risk assessed, and the garden was not fully accessible.
“The outer perimeter of the service was not secure and was close to a railway line.” from the report
Mould and cleanliness
seriousInspectors found black mould, damaged surfaces, limescale, stains and areas that were difficult to clean. These problems created risks of infection and cross-contamination.
“We found black mold in another area of the service, on 1 person's bedroom wall. This placed people at risk of respiratory infections.” from the report
Care records and risk assessments
seriousSome risk assessments were out of date or inconsistent. One person's care plan was found in another person's records, creating a risk that the wrong support could be given.
“We found a care plan that belonged to one person who used the service inside care records that belonged to another person.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits and governance systems did not identify the problems found during the inspection. The manager's responsibilities were too broad and staffing pressures reduced time for oversight.
“Robust reporting and auditing systems were not in place to support effective oversight and governance and continuous learning in the service.” from the report
Staffing continuity
needs fixingThere were enough staff during the visits, but staff turnover and recruitment problems had affected people's routines. The manager had been working care shifts, which contributed to missed supervision and training.
“Staffing turnover had at times disrupted the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Best-interest records
needs fixingStaff supported people in the least restrictive way and in their best interests, but the records did not consistently show shared decision-making or best-interest processes.
“The management team were not always confident in how to reflect shared decision making and in documenting the best interest processes.” from the report
- 01Have all the perimeter fence panels been repaired or replaced, and how are risks near the railway line and pond now managed?
- 02Has the source of the mould been investigated and has all mould, damaged flooring and poor cleaning been dealt with?
- 03How do you now check that each person's care plan and risk assessments are current and stored in the correct records?
- 04What staffing and senior support are now in place so the registered manager can oversee the home rather than regularly cover care shifts?
- 05How are supervision, training, team meetings and best-interest decisions now recorded and monitored?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and no ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 2023 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and visiting arrangements were being managed, although some areas looked tired.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether staffing pressures linked to COVID-19 were affecting the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, arranging testing, managing visitors and following shielding and social distancing rules. They also found policies and risk assessments for COVID-19.
The home was clean, but some areas looked tired and could make cleaning more difficult. Refurbishment work was planned. People could keep in touch with family and friends, use the community and receive health care support.
The home was inspected but not rated. This was not a full assessment of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had measures to prevent and manage infection, including safe use of protective equipment and access to testing.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to receive face-to-face visitors in line with guidance and to keep contact with friends and family.
“People living in the service were enabled to maintain contacts with friends and family.” from the report
Health care access
People could access health care both in person and through technology.
“People had access to health care support both in person and via technology such as zoom” from the report
Tired areas
minorSome parts of the home looked tired, which made cleaning more difficult. Refurbishment was planned, but this report does not say whether the work had started or finished.
“The service was clean, but some areas were tired which made cleaning more difficult however the provider had plan to refurbish parts of the service.” from the report
- 01Which areas looked tired at the inspection, and what refurbishment has been completed since then?
- 02How do you make sure those areas can be cleaned effectively while refurbishment is pending?
- 03How are visits currently arranged, and can residents still access the community?
- 04How do you manage staffing pressures if COVID-19 affects staff availability?
- 05What are the home's current ratings or most recent inspection findings for caring, effectiveness, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not provide ratings for the other care questions. 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.
Every inspection of Woody Point
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2011.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.