- Care home
Woodside Nursing Home
Assessment report published 3 November 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment 17 July 2025 to 02 September 2025.
Woodside Nursing Home provides care and support for up to 48 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 39 people living at the service. It is located over three floors with communal lounges, dining rooms and access to garden and woodland areas.
The inspection was carried out due to the service not being inspected since 2018 and was prompted in part by information of an incident following which a person using the service sustained an injury.
We reviewed all key questions and quality statements under the domains of Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
People were safe and protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Where concerns had been identified, the provider took action to prevent reoccurrence. The provider was proactive and there was a culture of safety where incidents were reported and investigated. The environment was clean and well-maintained and regular safety checks were being completed by the service. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff who had access to regular support and supervision. Staff had all the required employment checks before they commenced in their role and staff and teams worked well together. We observed people were being supported to live healthy lives and clinical staff were mainly monitoring people’s outcomes. Staff were kind and compassionate and this was confirmed by partners working with the service. There was evidence in care plans of person-centred information being available for staff to follow and the service supported people with planning for the future. The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture and leaders were capable, compassionate and inclusive. Staff were able to speak up about any concerns and there were workforce equality, diversity and inclusion initiatives in place. There was evidence of working with other partners and people accessing the community. The provider had learning, improvement and innovation initiatives in place.
However, we identified some governance concerns. For example, lack of repositioning records for a person at risk of pressure wounds, minor infection, prevention and control (IPC) concerns in one area of the building and the gender preference of a person not always being recorded in documents in line with their preference. Medicine storage room temperatures were noted to have been consistently above the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines of 25 degrees Celsius for a 3-month period. Although audits had identified the high temperatures, the steps the provider took did not effectively reduce the room temperatures. The provider acted quickly to resolve these concerns during the inspection.
People's experience of this service
Feedback was gathered from people using the service and their relatives both on-site and off-site. People were satisfied with the support they received and, where people had raised concerns, they told us the provider had acted effectively, and they were satisfied with the outcome. People were generally satisfied with the food, snacks and activities on offer, and we saw one-to-one activities taking place with people who preferred these. People told us the service regularly asked for their feedback so they could talk about any issues they had. People told us they were supported to remain independent and could make a choice about their daily routines which staff were compliant with. People told us staff treated them as individuals and with dignity and respect. Feedback from people living in the service included, “I am very happy, they are very nice people, I am very happy here. The staff are very good,” and “I knit and read, the staff get me books from the library (in the service), they know I like certain types of stories and now the mobile library has started coming.” Relatives feedback included, “We are satisfied, [Person] is in a safe place” and “The staff are brilliant. They are also very attentive. They are lovely and respectful [Person] is happy with them. [Person] always talks with staff.” However, one person told us the transition into the service was not effective due to limited information-sharing between the hospital and the service, which meant they did not have access to the equipment needed. The provider demonstrated how they had resolved this, and the person now had access to the equipment they needed.