CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woofferton Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and clear improvement since the previous inspection, but medicines records still needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 6 and 14 July 2022. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with seven people, the provider and four staff members. They reviewed care plans, medicine records, training records, safety records and how the home was managed.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Staff were described as trained, supportive and available when needed. People received enough food and drink, could make choices, see healthcare professionals and take part in activities.
Inspectors recommended improvements to medicine storage and recording. They also found some care plans did not yet record emotional distress, cultural or religious needs, or menus for meals. The provider took action or said action would be taken during or after the inspection.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in July 2019, with breaches of regulations. The home had followed its action plan and was no longer in breach. Its overall rating changed to Good.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe at the home and with the staff supporting them. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff who supported them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people gently and respectfully. People were offered choices and supported to have privacy and independence.
“Staff interactions with people were kind and respectful. Staff supported people in a gentle an unhurried manner.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, training and supervision. Staff said they felt supported and competent to carry out their roles.
“Staff were positive about the training they received and told us they had completed the required training to meet the needs of the people they supported.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its audits, staff support and action planning since the previous inspection. Inspectors found the earlier breaches had been addressed.
“There were audits and checks in place which were effective in identifying where improvements were required.” from the report
Good food and healthcare support
People spoke positively about the food. Staff helped people access healthcare and acted on professional advice.
“People were positive about the meals provided.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingThe medicine cupboard temperature had not been recorded since December 2021. Some handwritten medicine entries lacked the required second staff signature, which could increase the risk of recording errors.
“However, when additional medicines had been prescribed, handwritten entries had not been signed by two members of staff to confirm the entry was in accordance with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Some care plans needed more detail
needs fixingA person experiencing emotional distress did not have a care plan or risk assessment for this. Cultural and religious needs were also not always recorded, although the provider said these issues would be addressed.
“Staff told us about one person who expressed their emotional distress both verbally and physically, however there was no care plan in place to monitor or manage periods of distress.” from the report
Menus were not available
minorPeople enjoyed the food, but nobody inspectors spoke with knew what was planned for lunch. The provider said menus were being produced after discussions with people.
“Nobody we spoke with knew what was for lunch as menus were not available.” from the report
- 01How do you now record medicine cupboard temperatures and check handwritten medicine entries?
- 02Has every person’s care plan been checked for emotional distress, cultural needs and religious preferences?
- 03Are daily or weekly menus now available, and how can residents request alternatives?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in formally reviewing care plans?
- 05How will you maintain the improvements made since the previous inspection?
This was a follow-up inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating and action plan, and it also checked infection prevention and control under Safe; all five key questions were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 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.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but risks, staff support and quality checks were not always managed well.
The inspection took place on 19 and 24 June 2019. One inspector visited the home, speaking with eight residents and six staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training records, health and safety information and records about how the home was managed.
Residents were generally positive about the care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and responsive. Inspectors found good support with food, healthcare, activities, communication, privacy and medicines.
However, some safety risks were not properly assessed or managed. These included high falls risk, hot water, unsecured wardrobes, unrestricted windows and free-standing radiators. Staff also said they did not receive regular supervision or appraisals, and the home's checks had not found these problems.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
Residents described staff as kind, considerate and respectful. Inspectors also saw staff provide calm and reassuring support when someone became upset.
“People told us they were supported by staff who were kind and considerate.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
People said they received their medicines when needed. Staff administering medicines were trained and competent, and records provided a clear audit trail.
“Medicines were managed and administered by staff who were trained and competent to carry out the task.” from the report
Good food and healthcare
People were positive about the meals and said they had enough to eat and drink. Records showed people were supported with healthcare appointments and recommendations.
“People were very positive about the meals provided.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had opportunities for activities, outings and social contact. They were supported to keep in touch with friends and family.
“People told us they had opportunities for social stimulation in the home and local community.” from the report
Risks were not always controlled
seriousInspectors found several environmental risks and missing risk assessments or care plans. This included a person at high risk of falls and hot water above 50 degrees centigrade.
“People were not always protected from the risk of injury because there were no effective systems in place to identify, monitor or mitigate risks.” from the report
Staff support was inconsistent
needs fixingStaff said they did not receive regular supervision or appraisals. Some staff also said morale was low, although they said this did not affect residents.
“Staff told us they did not receive regular supervisions or appraisals.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
seriousThe home's monitoring systems had not identified or addressed the safety risks found during the inspection. The provider also did not formally record the outcome of discussions with residents.
“The provider's quality monitoring systems had not been effective in identifying or addressing the concerns we identified at this inspection.” from the report
Care plans did not show residents' involvement
needs fixingAlthough people said they were consulted and were happy with their care, the care plans did not demonstrate that people had been involved in planning or reviewing it.
“Care plans did not demonstrate that people had been involved in planning or reviewing their care.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to manage falls risk and ensure every resident has the right risk assessment and care plan?
- 02Have the hot water temperatures, unsecured wardrobes, unrestricted windows and free-standing radiators been made safe?
- 03How often do staff now receive supervision and appraisals, and how is staff morale being monitored?
- 04How do you check that your quality assurance system identifies safety problems promptly?
- 05How are residents now involved in planning and reviewing their care plans?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; Safe and Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while the other three ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 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.
Every inspection of Woofferton Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Woofferton Residential Care Home →
- July 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Woofferton Residential Care Home →
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 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 8 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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 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.