CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodside Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection-control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, shielding, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment and testing safely. They also found arrangements for hygiene, outbreak management and infection-control policies.
The home used risk assessments, colour coding, written cleaning handovers and hospital information packs. It also had a ventilated and heated visiting area. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection risk planning
The home had risk assessments covering different parts of care during the pandemic. These were intended to help care continue safely.
“A wide range of risk assessments were in place to address the COVID-19 risks associated with every aspect of care to ensure care was able to continue in the safest possible way.” from the report
Cleaning and isolation arrangements
Colour coding helped staff identify cleaning areas and residents who were self-isolating. Written handovers helped staff keep cleaning up to date.
“Handovers took place between cleaning staff and these were written up on the provider's messaging system.” from the report
Hospital information
The home used the RESTORE2 tool and prepared hospital packs with important information about each resident.
“The hospital pack recorded key information about each resident to ensure hospital staff knew how to meet their needs.” from the report
Visiting area
The home had a dedicated visiting area that was ventilated and heated for residents and visitors.
“The home had a bespoke visiting area which was ventilated and heated.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the infection-control risk assessments reviewed and updated now?
- 02How do staff identify and support residents who need to self-isolate?
- 03How are cleaning handovers recorded, checked and followed up?
- 04How are RESTORE2 information and hospital packs kept up to date?
- 05How does the visiting area operate now, including its ventilation and heating?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 March 2021 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, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some improvements needed to recruitment checks, water safety and parts of the building.
This was an unannounced inspection in July 2018. The inspector reviewed records and audits, checked recruitment files, observed care, and spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, personalised care plans, kind interactions and approachable management.
The report also identified some areas needing attention. These included incomplete employment histories in two staff files, limited legionella training and assessment, and flooring and bathroom equipment that could affect infection control. The provider agreed to review and improve the premises.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said they felt safe and cared for. Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions and staff supporting privacy and dignity.
“People were treated with kindness and we saw staff chatting informally to them.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and life stories were tailored to each person. Staff used information about people's backgrounds, likes and dislikes to guide care.
“These were comprehensive and accessible to staff on the hand-held care plan devices.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored, administered and audited safely. Inspectors also found enough staff to support people without rushing.
“The service deployed sufficient staff to maintain the safety and provide care to people in the home.” from the report
Support with food and health
The home adapted food textures, monitored weights and sought advice from healthcare professionals when needed.
“People had the right support to meet their dietary needs.” from the report
Approachable management
The manager was visible and staff said they could raise concerns or suggest improvements. The home had audits and regular handovers.
“Staff told us that the registered manager was supportive and approachable” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingTwo staff files had incomplete employment histories. The manager corrected these during the inspection, but inspectors recommended reviewing recruitment and pre-employment procedures.
“We saw that two application forms had incomplete employment records.” from the report
Water safety training and assessment
needs fixingOne bedroom had hot and cold taps at similar temperatures, and key staff had not completed suitable legionella training. No legionella spores had been found in samples for several years, so the reported impact was minimal.
“The lack of training and action to address the faulty outlets were of concern” from the report
Building and infection control repairs
needs fixingSome flooring was not fully sealed, tiles and grout were cracked, and a shower seat had hairline cracking. These defects could harbour bacteria, so the provider committed to a full review and repairs.
“Both flooring and shower seat issues were concerns regarding infection control.” from the report
Irregular staff meetings
minorStaff meetings did not have a clear regular timetable. Inspectors said a regular schedule might help more staff attend.
“Providing a regular schedule of meetings may enable more staff to attend.” from the report
- 01Has the full water safety and legionella risk assessment been completed by a competent person, and which staff have received relevant training?
- 02Have the flooring, cracked tiles, grout and shower seat been repaired or replaced, and how are infection control checks recorded?
- 03How are full employment histories and other pre-employment checks completed and checked before staff start work?
- 04How often are staff meetings now held, and how are night, kitchen and care staff able to contribute?
- 05What maintenance is planned for the current building before the proposed redevelopment?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions; the previous inspection in January 2016 was also rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 2018 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 Lodge
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 2010.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.