Wayside Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last inspection we rated this key question Good. At this inspection the rating has changed to Inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in leadership. Leaders and the culture they created did not assure the delivery of high-quality care.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not have a proactive and positive culture based on honesty. They did not listen to concerns about health and safety and did not always inform Care Quality Commission about safeguarding concerns. There was a lack of accurate recording and robust processes for assessing and monitoring health and safety risks to people.

The provider’s vision and strategy had not always been followed up.We found the provider did not always follow fire safety and water risk to ensure people were safe from environmental risks.

During our inspection visits we were repeatedly provided with misleading information by the Nominated Individual. We were given information by the Nominated Individual on several occasions that was inaccurate, for example, details of training staff had received, whether agency staff were used and the timeliness of repairs.

There was no registered manager in post since April 2024 which impacted on a quality of the service. The Nominated Individual did not have the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively, and they did not do so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Although staff felt they could approach the leadership of the service with concerns and they would be addressed, managers were not always proactive in identifying or acting upon identified infection prevention control and health and safety issues. Which meant it could impact the quality of people’s care and well-being.

We received mixed feedback from people and relatives regarding the leadership of the service. One person’s relative told us, “I have no trust or confidence in [Nominated Individual]”. However, some people we spoke with told us that the leadership of the service was approachable. A person told us, “They are OK. There is nothing to change, food is quite good, the only problem is waiting in the morning.”

Staff understood how to raise concerns if they felt the management team had not satisfactorily responded to them or people. However, some people’s relatives told us they were unable to post comments on a closed group on social media after they challenged the provider about a delayed lift repair. One person’s relative told us, “Now Wayside blocked everybody from commenting. There is only what they want to say.”Some relatives told us they had found it difficult to give feedback and that the provider did not respond positively to any challenge.

There had also been limited statutory notifications sent to the CQC despite evidence being seen on the inspection of notifiable incidents, this leading to reduced opportunities for external monitoring and oversight.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The recruitment process demonstrated a fair and equitable approach, resulting in a workforce which reflected diversity. Staff reported feeling they were treated fairly and equitably in the workplace, and no concerns were raised regarding discrimination or unfair treatment.

The provider did not have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. The provider failed to ensure governance systems were effective, and appropriate actions were taken to improve the safety and quality of the service.

The provider had a range of audits in place. Although some audits carried out were effective, action was not always taken to address concerns identified. For example, the last infection prevention control audit mentioned stained carpets and a need for new furniture. There was no action plan in place and when we asked the person who completed the audit what action has been taken, they told us this was reported to the Nominated Individual.

Multiple health and safety issues identified during our visits were not identified by the provider’s quality assurance system. We requested a immediate action plan from the service following our inspection; however, we had to extend the deadline as the Nominated Individual chose not to take action on some sections of our request. For example, we received no response regarding sending a sample of water for analysis.

During the second day of our visit we saw most of the issues raised by us on the first day of the inspection were addressed, however, new issues emerged following the admission of a person which took place on the first day of our visit. The person did not have suitable moving and handling equipment and the person’s personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) did not take this fact into account. We asked the acting manager to contact the fire and rescue service to develop the plan how to safely evacuate the person in the absence of suitable moving and handling equipment.

During the first day of our visit we found we were not notified about multiple safeguarding referrals. We were unaware of 13 safeguarding referrals submitted to local authority in 2025. The safeguarding referrals included unexplained bruising, deep tissues injury, insulin overdose and attempted suicide. Although we were not notified about multiple incidents, all of them were investigated by the provider with multiple witness statements obtained, and where necessary other healthcare professional were involved. We asked the Nominated Individual to submit statutory notifications retrospectively. However, to date, we received no notifications submitted retrospectively.

Most people, their relatives and staff were positive about the leadership of the service. One person’s relative told us, “I think the management is excellent with limited funds like they have.” A member of staff told us, “The management are good in their own way, if there is any issue they tackle it.”

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They did not always share information and learning with partners or collaborate for improvement.

The provider told us they engaged with external professionals to make improvements. However, we were not assured priorities had been effectively assessed as concerns remained regarding fire safety, water safety and the safety of some aspects of the home environment.

People and their relatives told us they received support to access services from other health care professionals as needed, such as their GP or speech and language therapist (SALT).

The provider did not have a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were not learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. The Care Quality Commission had to extend the deadline to the provider’s immediate action plan due to lack of the information provided. This lack of engagement and responsiveness did not provide us with assurances the service has the capacity or commitment to implement and embed improvements.

The provider did not focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. Quality assurance systems were either inconsistently applied or ineffective, which limited the service's ability to drive improvements which promoted a safe environment, and enhanced quality of life for people using the service. Risks were not identified or actioned to ensure people were safe, there was no focus on improving the safety for people and reducing the risk of injury.

There was no evidence of an open and transparent culture which supports learning when things go wrong. The provider failed to demonstrate learning from the findings of previous visit by fire and rescue service.