You are here

Woodside Care Home Requires improvement

We are carrying out checks at Woodside Care Home using our new way of inspecting services. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2017

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of Woodside Care Home on 21 July 2016. Breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breaches.

We undertook a focused inspection on 25 January 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. During this inspection on the 25 January 2017 we found the provider had made some improvements in the areas we had identified. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodside Care Home on our website at

Woodside Care Home provides care and support for up to 42 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 20 people living at the home. People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks, with some people living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, the registered manager was not available during our inspection and a different manager was monitoring the home.

People had not been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had only just begun to be completed to ensure the home could meet people’s requirements. There had been few meetings with staff to ensure they were aware about the changes within the environment. The clinical governance measures were not robust enough and did not reflect whether lessons had been learnt from audits to measure the quality of the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Some areas of the home which had been in need of repair had improved. Work had been completed to change flooring, redecorate communal areas, new furniture had been purchased and unsafe areas in bathrooms had new flooring. Schedules were in place to monitor the cleanliness of the premises. However, these had only just commenced and not been analysed for effectiveness of the programme. There was no maintenance or refurbishment plan in place to ensure people were living in premises of an acceptable standard.

Infection control prevention procedures had been put in place and staff were aware how to implement them to prevent people from being harmed.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Checks had only just begun to ensure the home was a safe place to live.

Some parts of the home had been redecorated; new flooring and other furniture had been purchased.

Infection control and prevention policies were in place, but there had yet to be an analysis of the results of infection control audits.

We found action had been taken to improve safety.

While improvements had been made we have not revised the rating for this key question; to improve the rating to ‘Good’ would require a longer term track record of consistent good practice.



Updated 23 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff received suitable training and support to enable them to do their job.

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the key requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were understood by staff and people’s legal rights protected.



Updated 23 September 2016

The service was caring.

People’s needs and wishes were respected by staff.

Staff ensured people’s dignity was maintained at all times.

Staff respected people’s needs to maintain as much independence as possible


Requires improvement

Updated 23 September 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

People’s care was not planned and reviewed on a regular basis with them.

Activities were planned into each day and people told us how staff helped them spend their time.

People knew how to make concerns known and felt assured anything raised would be investigated.


Requires improvement

Updated 25 February 2017

The service was not consistently well-led.

An analysis of audits was not undertaken to measure if the services being provided were suitable and could meet people’s needs. However, staff had begun checks to measure whether care plans and the administration of medicines were meeting people needs.

People’s opinions were not sought on the services provided, but they stated staff spoke to them and listened to their concerns.

We found not enough suitable action had been taken to show clear governance of this home.

We have not revised the rating for this key question; to improve the rating to ‘Good’ would require a longer term track record of consistent good practice.