You are here

Woodside Care Home Inadequate

We are carrying out a review of quality at Woodside Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 October 2020

About the service

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 42 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people receiving care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Service users were at an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 as the provider failed to have systems in place to identify and protect people in the high-risk category.National infection prevention guidelines were not followed. The provider failed to ensure staff and people living in the service were tested regularly for COVID-19 in line with government guidelines.

The service was unclean, the provider failed to ensure there were checks to keep the service clean. Measures were not put in place to protect people if COVID-19 were to get into the service. Some staff were not wearing PPE and some staff were wearing PPE incorrectly.

People were at risk of harm due to poorly managed health conditions such as diabetes and urinary tract infections. People were at increased risk of dehydration and urine infections as there was no oversight of what people drank; fluid charts were not completed or were inconsistent. This increased the risk of dehydration.

People at risk of falls were at risk of harm from falls and altercations between residents due to a lack of review and analysis and inconsistent recording.

Environmental risks were not managed which increased the likelihood of people tripping and falling; equipment was not secured to walls, and lighting was not sufficient. Temperature checks of water were not being carried out which increased the risk of people being harmed from scalding hot water.

People were not protected from abuse. The leadership of the service did not create a positive environment where people felt safe to speak out and report abuse. Incidents such as alleged theft, neglect and physical altercations between people were not reported to the relevant authorities and notifications to the CQC and local authority safeguarding team were not made.

Staffing levels were not sufficient provide safe care to people. Low levels of staffing during the night-time meant staff would not be able to evacuate people safely in an emergency. Low levels of staffing during the daytime meant people did not receive the care they needed to keep them safe from harm from other people living in the service.

The provider failed to ensure adequate leadership or oversight. The service was not person centred and people were provided with institutional care which was task focussed.

The provider failed to create an open culture and failed to investigate serious incidents and share information with partner agencies.

The provider failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the service. Their failure to review audits affected the safety and quality of the service. Because of this, outcomes for people were poor and the safety of the service was inadequate and placed people at an avoidable risk of harm.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 3 June 2019)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The inspection was prompted in part due to several concerns received about neglect, staffing and abuse. A decision was made for us to inspect sooner and examine those risks.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not insp

Inspection areas



Updated 24 October 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 24 October 2020



Updated 24 October 2020



Updated 24 October 2020



Updated 24 October 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.