Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Wayside Care Home

Inadequatepublished 1 July 2026, 3 months ago

Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvement, but noted staffing pressures, worn areas and a medicines process to address.

This was an unannounced inspection on 28 and 29 November 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed a mealtime and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, recruitment files, training records and management checks.

All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported with their medicines, given suitable food and healthcare, and treated with dignity. Care plans were detailed and activities and visits were available.

The home had improved since the previous rating of Requires Improvement in April 2023. Recording of care and medicines had improved, and the earlier breach about notifying the CQC had been resolved. Some relatives raised concerns about staffing at nights and weekends, and inspectors identified smaller issues involving a covert medicines decision, worn communal areas and the detail recorded in some audits.

What inspectors praised
  • Personalised care

    Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs and preferences. Families were involved when care plans changed.

    “People's care plans were personalised and provided detailed information to staff on how to support people in the way they preferred.” from the report
  • Safe medicines support

    Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. The medicine records inspectors reviewed showed medicines had been administered correctly.

    “People were supported to take their medicines safely and as prescribed by staff who were trained to administer medicines and regularly had their competency checked to ensure correct procedures were followed.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors found that staff knew people well and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.

    “People's privacy, dignity and independence was respected.” from the report
  • Activities and relationships

    People were encouraged to maintain important relationships and take part in activities that interested them. People could also choose not to join in.

    “People were supported to maintain relationships important to them and were encouraged to follow their interests.” from the report
  • Improved leadership

    The service had improved since the previous inspection. Management checks, meetings and feedback from relatives were being used to make changes.

    “The home is definitely improving and going in the right direction.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Night and weekend staffing

    needs fixing

    Relatives gave mixed views about staffing and some felt there were not enough staff, particularly at night and at weekends. Agency staff were used to cover vacancies, although the home tried to use the same agency staff for consistency.

    “It is understaffed more so of a night than a weekend.” from the report
  • Covert medicines process

    needs fixing

    For one person, a pharmacist had not been involved in the decision about covert medicines. Inspectors found no harm, but said the quality of medicines could have been affected.

    “Whilst we found no harm, we identified the pharmacist had not been involved in the decision-making process and in the multi-disciplinary team discussion for one person on covert medicines.” from the report
  • Worn communal areas

    minor

    The home was clean, but some shared areas looked worn. The provider had plans for redecoration and was already painting one communal room.

    “The home was clean, although some communal areas looked worn.” from the report
  • Toilet cleaning frequency

    minor

    A relative said toilets were cleaned once a day and should be cleaned more often. The manager said cleaning schedules were being improved to include daytime frequency.

    “As the residents will go to the toilets unsupervised, cleaning of toilets should be done several times a day.” from the report
  • Audit records

    minor

    Inspectors asked the manager to add more detail to care plan audits, including who was responsible for actions and when they should be completed.

    “We discussed adding further information to the care plan audits to demonstrate any actions which had been taken, who these were allocated to and what timeframes had been given.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many permanent staff are usually working at night and at weekends, and how often are agency staff needed?
  2. 02What action has been taken to involve a pharmacist in decisions about covert medicines?
  3. 03What is the timetable for redecorating the worn communal areas?
  4. 04How often are communal toilets cleaned during the day now?
  5. 05How are actions from care plan audits recorded, allocated and followed up?

This was an unannounced inspection prompted partly by concerns about complaints; inspectors assessed all five CQC questions and looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, April 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but records and management systems were not consistently reliable.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 22 February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staffing and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, staffing levels met people's needs, recruitment checks were completed, and medicines and infection risks were generally managed safely.

Effective and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Some mental capacity, care and medicine records were incomplete or inconsistent. The provider had also not always told CQC promptly when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been authorised.

The overall rating remains Requires Improvement. It was also the home's rating at the previous inspection and has been the rating for the last three consecutive inspections. A new manager had started shortly before this inspection and had begun making changes.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood people's individual risks and how to support them.

    “People told us they felt safe living at the home and staff supported people with respect and in a caring way.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    Inspectors observed staff providing individualised, respectful and compassionate support. People and relatives described the care positively.

    “Staff demonstrated the appropriate skills and knowledge to support people in an individualised, respectful, and compassionate manner; people told us this and our observations confirmed it.” from the report
  • Food and healthcare

    People enjoyed the food and were supported with their dietary needs. Staff worked with health and social care professionals to support people's health.

    “The cook and care staff worked together to effectively meet people's food choices, specific dietary needs, and any food allergies.” from the report
  • Changes had started

    The provider and new manager had begun making improvements and acted after the inspection to address documentation gaps and training needs.

    “After our inspection visit the manager and clinical lead took action without delay to resolve all the gaps in documentation which had been identified and considered any further refresher training staff required.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Consent records

    needs fixing

    Mental capacity assessments were not always detailed enough. Inspectors found one person's bed rails were in use without a documented assessment showing whether the person could consent.

    “People did not always have sufficiently robust or detailed mental capacity assessments in place.” from the report
  • Medicine documentation

    needs fixing

    For two people, staff did not have the required guidance for medicines given when needed. Staff had also not always signed to confirm that prescribed creams had been given.

    “We found for 2 people the guidance and instruction for staff to follow in relation to medication on an as required basis needed to be put in place.” from the report
  • Late CQC notifications

    serious

    The provider had not consistently told CQC promptly when Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been authorised. This was identified as a breach of regulation.

    “The provider had not consistently informed CQC as required when the supervisory body had authorised Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).” from the report
  • PPE practice

    needs fixing

    Some staff wore face masks below their chin or nose. The manager knew about this and said it would be addressed.

    “However, staff did not always put their training knowledge into practice. Staff wore face masks below their chin and noses.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01Have all mental capacity assessments and best-interest records been reviewed and updated, including records about bed rails?
  2. 02What checks now confirm that staff sign medicine records, including for prescribed creams?
  3. 03What guidance is available for medicines given on an as-required basis, and how is its use checked?
  4. 04Have all required DoLS notifications now been sent to CQC, and what system prevents any being missed?
  5. 05How are managers checking that staff wear PPE correctly and that the improvements remain in place?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Wayside Care Home

7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. January 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Wayside Care Home →

  2. April 2023Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Wayside Care Home →

  3. February 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. July 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. December 2017Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. March 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. June 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. February 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. July 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  11. March 2013

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 March 2013.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire

These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.

Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.

“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
Brian G., about Chris M.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Katrina O., about Sekai M.
See live-in carers near WorcestershireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.