- Care home
Wayside Care Home
Assessment report published 1 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 25th February and 3rd March 2026. Wayside Care Home is a care home with nursing providing care for older and younger people living with dementia and physical disabilities. Wayside Care Home provides care and support for up to 31 people. Some of whom are living with dementia.
At our last inspection we found the provider was in breach of 4 legal regulations in relation to fit and proper persons, safe care and treatment, good governance and submitting statutory notifications.
At this inspection we found the provider was in breach of regulations regarding safe care and treatment, environment, good governance and submitting statutory notifications.
People were not effectively protected from avoidable harm. There were concerns regarding fire safety, infection prevention and control, environmental risks, and unsafe care practices. Significant risks, including blocked fire exits, inadequate evacuation arrangements, and poor maintenance of the premises, placed people at ongoing risk and had not been addressed in a timely way. Governance systems failed to identify or respond effectively to these concerns.
Care planning and risk assessment processes were inconsistent, incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate, meaning staff did not always have reliable information to deliver safe or effective care.
People were not consistently treated with dignity or respect, and there was evidence of poor practice, including the use of inappropriate language and a lack of personalised care. Care was not routinely tailored to individual needs, preferences, or protected characteristics, with limited evidence people were meaningfully involved in decisions about their care or daily lives.
Systems intended to ensure safe and effective staffing were inadequate, with gaps in training, inconsistent staff competence, and unsafe moving and handling practices observed. Leadership had not taken effective action to monitor or address these concerns.
The service’s approach to safeguarding and legal compliance was inconsistent. While some processes, were in place, these were undermined by poor recording, lack of clarity, and inconsistent implementation. This meant there was limited assurance people’s rights were consistently protected.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found inconsistencies in the providers approach to managing DoLS applications and the recording of adherence to conditions. The providers application of the principles did not support best practice. Meaning people could not be assured their rights were protected.
There was limited evidence of effective partnership working or communication with external professionals, and information was not always shared or followed up appropriately. This led to gaps in care delivery and reduced assurance people’s needs were being met holistically.
Leadership, management, and governance were insufficient to ensure safe, high-quality care. The provider lacked effective oversight of risks, failed to act on known concerns, and did not demonstrate a culture of learning, transparency or continuous improvement. Issues identified at previous inspections remained unresolved, and there was a lack of evidence of sustained improvement.
This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.
People's experience of this service
People’s experience of care at Wayside Care Home was inconsistent and often poor, with significant concerns identified regarding safety, dignity, and person-centred care.
People were not consistently kept safe, with environmental hazards, poor infection prevention and control practices, unsafe staff practices, and ineffective risk management placing them at risk of avoidable harm.
People did not always receive care that was tailored to their individual needs, preferences, or wishes. Care planning information was often incomplete, inconsistent, or missing, which meant staff did not always have accurate guidance to support people appropriately. People were not consistently involved in decisions about their care or supported to express what mattered to them.
People were not always treated with dignity and respect. While some positive and friendly interactions between staff and people were observed, these were not consistent. There were incidents where staff used inappropriate language towards people and a lack of respect for people’s individuality and personal environment. The condition of the environment and equipment did not always promote people’s comfort or sense of wellbeing or presented a dignified environment within which to receive care.
People’s choice and control over their daily lives were limited. For example, people were not consistently offered meaningful choices about food, and information provided to support decision-making was sometimes inaccurate or not reflective of actual options available.
People did not always experience responsive care, with delays and unsafe responses observed in meeting people’s needs, particularly when being assisted with their mobility. There was limited evidence people’s emotional wellbeing was considered, and some care practices could cause distress or discomfort.
People’s rights were not always fully upheld, particularly where the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were not consistently applied or recorded. This reduced assurance people’s freedoms and choices were being respected and protected.
Opportunities for people to share feedback or influence their care were limited, and there was little evidence their views were consistently sought or acted upon.
There were some positive aspects of people’s experience, including occasional warm interactions with staff and evidence of support with health needs such as monitoring nutrition and accessing healthcare professionals. However, these were not consistent and were undermined by wider systemic failings in care delivery and governance.
Overall, people’s experiences reflected a service where care was not consistently safe, person-centred, or responsive, and where significant improvements were required to ensure people are treated with dignity, have choice and control, and receive care that meets their individual needs.