CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodside
Rated Outstanding: inspectors found the home performing exceptionally well.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, clean surroundings and kind interactions during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures were affecting the home.
The home had checks for visitors, including lateral flow tests, temperature checks and vaccination status. Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, managing testing, keeping people safe on admission and following visiting guidance.
The home was visibly clean, with frequent cleaning of high-touch areas and records reviewed by the registered manager. Inspectors also observed kind interactions between staff and residents. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor infection checks
The home used several checks to reduce the risk of visitors bringing COVID-19 into the home. Relatives were also encouraged and supported to visit.
“A robust process was in place to help ensure visitors did not bring COVID-19 into the home.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean. A dedicated housekeeper frequently cleaned high-touch areas, and records were kept and reviewed.
“A dedicated housekeeper carried out frequent cleaning including of high touch point areas such as hoists, light fixtures and door handles.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were observed wearing protective equipment in line with government guidance, and the home had plentiful stocks.
“Staff were observed wearing PPE in line with government guidance. A relative told us, "Staff are always wearing PPE.” from the report
Kind support
Although residents could not speak directly with inspectors, inspectors observed many kind interactions between residents and staff.
“Although people were unable to speak with us, we interacted informally with them and observed many kind interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures, and what measures are in place if COVID-19 affects staffing?
- 02What checks must visitors complete before entering, and how do you support family visits?
- 03How often are high-touch areas such as hoists, door handles and light fixtures cleaned, and who reviews the records?
- 04How do you make sure staff have enough protective equipment and use it safely?
- 05How do you make sure visiting professionals meet the current vaccination or exemption requirements?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not give findings for the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 2022 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.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a few minor issues put right during or after the inspection.
This was the first inspection since the home registered with CQC. One inspector visited on 29 and 31 January 2020. They observed care, spoke with staff, a relative and professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
The home supported four adults with complex medical, physical and learning needs. Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough trained staff, detailed care plans, safe medicines systems and good links with health and social care professionals.
People could not tell inspectors directly about their experiences because they were non-verbal. However, inspectors observed positive interactions, and relatives and professionals gave very positive feedback. The home supported choice, independence, activities and contact with family and the community.
There were a few minor shortfalls. Two medicine records did not include the opening dates of topical creams, although the dates were written on the packaging, and this was fixed immediately. Some staff were not confident about the legal rules for decision-making, and the provider acted to revisit this in staff training.
Improved quality of life
Inspectors found that people's health and quality of life had improved after moving to the home. Relatives also described positive changes for their family members and themselves.
“People's quality of life and health outcomes had improved on moving to the home.” from the report
Safe staffing
There were enough staff with the skills and experience needed to support people safely. Recruitment checks were also described as robust.
“There were enough suitably trained staff to meet people's needs without rushing or compromising safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people well and supported their dignity, privacy and independence. Inspectors saw warm and positive interactions.
“People were supported by staff who were extremely kind, caring, compassionate and attentive.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, based on their interests and goals. Staff worked to remove barriers linked to disability.
“People were supported and encouraged to participate in a variety of activities in the home and community tailored to their interests and goals.” from the report
Medicine records
minorTwo records did not show when topical creams had been opened, although the dates were written on the packaging. The issue was raised and corrected immediately.
“Medicines administration records were complete and legible apart from two where we noticed topical cream opening dates had not been added” from the report
Staff confidence with decision-making rules
needs fixingSome staff were not confident about the Mental Capacity Act principles. The manager said this would be revisited with staff at the next team meeting.
“Although staff had received training in mental capacity, with guidance about this also available on the staff noticeboard, some staff were not confident in the principles of the MCA.” from the report
Registration details
minorThe provider's registration did not fully reflect the activities being provided. The provider took immediate action to correct this after it was identified.
“Although the provider's registration was not reflective of the activities they provide, once identified the provider took immediate action to correct this.” from the report
- 01What refresher training have staff had on the Mental Capacity Act and making decisions in people's best interests?
- 02How are medicine records, including opening dates for creams, checked now?
- 03How will you make sure the home's registration continues to match the activities and support provided?
- 04How will you involve our relative and family in care plan reviews and decisions about daily activities?
- 05How do you make sure staff understand our relative's individual ways of communicating pain, discomfort and choice?
This was a planned first inspection covering all five CQC areas, including both the care provided and the care home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2020 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.
Every inspection of Woodside
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2020GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 February 2019.
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.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
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 £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.