CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodside House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about infection control, staffing, testing, protective equipment and visiting arrangements. Formal risk assessments for admissions and individual staff COVID-19 risks had not been completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and staffing, but formal COVID-19 risk assessments were incomplete.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 26 January 2022. It looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found the home was visibly clean. People and relatives said they felt safe with the infection control measures. Staff were seen wearing personal protective equipment, and visitor controls included testing, protective equipment, symptom checks and hand washing.
Staffing was considered appropriate at the time of the visit, with no concerns identified. However, formal risk assessments for admissions and individual staff risks linked to COVID-19 had not been completed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a new overall quality rating or a full rating for all five questions.
Clean environment
The home was visibly clean, and people and relatives reported no concerns about cleanliness or hygiene.
“The home was observed to be visibly clean throughout and both the people who used the service, and their relatives, told us they had no concerns in relation to cleanliness and hygiene.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff were seen wearing protective equipment in line with government guidance. People and relatives said they consistently saw staff wearing masks.
“Staff were observed to be wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) as per government guidance and the people who used the service, and their relatives, told us they consistently saw staff wearing masks.” from the report
Visitor safety measures
The home had several measures to reduce infection risks for visitors, including testing, protective equipment, symptom monitoring and hand washing.
“Procedures were in place to mitigate the risk of visitors catching and spreading infection.” from the report
Staffing at the visit
Inspectors found the home was appropriately staffed at the time of inspection and identified no staffing concerns.
“At the time of this inspection, the service was appropriately staffed with no concerns identified.” from the report
Missing formal risk assessments
needs fixingFormal risk assessments had not been completed for admissions or individual staff risks linked to COVID-19. Inspectors said risks had been considered in discussion, but the provider was signposted to resources to improve this approach.
“Whilst formal risk assessments were not in place as required by government guidance, through discussion with staff, we were assured risk factors had been considered and the risk dynamically assessed.” from the report
Earlier visiting rules were stricter
minorThe home had previously used visiting procedures that were more restrictive than government guidance. At the inspection, the policy was aligned with the guidance and relatives said they had been kept informed.
“However, the provider had chosen previously not to align their visiting policy and procedures with government guidance meaning the procedures in place were more stringent than guidance indicated.” from the report
- 01Have the formal risk assessments for admissions into the home now been completed?
- 02Have individual COVID-19 risk assessments for staff now been completed?
- 03What are the current visiting rules, and are they aligned with government guidance?
- 04How do you check that staff continue to use personal protective equipment correctly?
- 05What staffing arrangements are in place if COVID-19 causes staff pressures?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 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, July 2017
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring and responsive support, with concerns about staffing and access to drinks.
This was an unannounced inspection in June 2017. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked medicines, care plans, recruitment, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found kind staff, detailed care plans, suitable training and good systems for checking the quality of care.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Some people did not always receive enough staff time for physical or social needs. Inspectors also found that drinks were not always readily available, and some medicine patch records were incomplete.
The home had fixed the two breaches found at the previous inspection in September 2016. There was no registered manager at this inspection. The manager in post was applying to register with the CQC.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff supporting people patiently and with warmth. People's privacy and dignity were usually respected.
“Staff interactions with people were relaxed, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Good staff training
More than 96% of staff were up to date with the provider's required training. Nursing staff also had training in several clinical areas.
“A high percentage of staff, over 96%, were up to date with all the statutory training required by the provider.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had regular monthly and weekly checks covering medicines, care records, infection control, nutrition and hydration.
“The provider had a rolling programme of monthly audits that covered areas such as medications, care documentation, infection control and nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Staff availability
seriousInspectors saw periods when no staff were present in a lounge with up to ten people. People waited for help and some became distressed while staff were being found.
“We recommend that the provider re-evaluates staffing levels and staff deployment arrangements from the perspective of people using the service to ensure there are sufficient and consistent numbers of staff available, to safely meet the physical and social needs of people living in the home.” from the report
Drinks were not always available
needs fixingSome people and relatives said drinks were not always kept beside people. Inspectors also saw that drinks were not regularly offered between mouthfuls when people were being helped to eat.
“The provider needed to ensure that people always had drinks available to them.” from the report
Incomplete medicine patch records
needs fixingRecords did not always show that previous medicated skin patches had been removed. Inspectors also said some instructions for medicines given when needed needed more detail.
“Records of the removal of previous patches were not always being completed to ensure safety.” from the report
Limited time for conversation
minorSeveral people said staff were often too busy to spend time talking with them beyond direct care. This affected their social contact and relationships with staff.
“Several people told us that staff were busy and did not have enough time to speak with them, other than when providing direct assistance.” from the report
- 01Has the twilight shift on Memory Lane been introduced, and how do you check that staffing is enough throughout the day and evening?
- 02How do you make sure people always have drinks within reach and are offered drinks when staff help them eat?
- 03What checks now confirm that medicated skin patches are removed and recorded correctly?
- 04How do staff make time for conversation and activities as well as personal care?
- 05Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of their CQC registration?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; it found that the two breaches identified in September 2016 had been resolved. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 July 2017 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 House
5 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- August 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.