CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Woodside Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Requires Improvement overall, with inadequate leadership and serious gaps in risk management, care records, training and safeguarding.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 December 2022. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led only because of concerns about people's safety, dignity and care. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a health professional, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was not always safe. Care plans and risk assessments were incomplete or contradictory. Inspectors found problems with skin care, choking risks, fire safety, infection control, basic personal care and staff training. Medicines were managed more safely than at the previous inspection, although some medicines records were still inaccurate.
Leadership was rated Inadequate. Audits had found problems but the home had not consistently acted on them. Staff training remained incomplete, care records were not reliable, and people were not always supported with planned care, exercise, activities or call bells. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, while the Well-led rating fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate.
Improved medicines safety
Medicines were stored at safe temperatures, and staff had guidance for medicines given when needed. The home was no longer in breach of the medicines part of Regulation 12.
“People were supported to manage and take the medicines they needed in a safe way.” from the report
Legal safeguards
The report found that relevant legal safeguards were in place and that the least restrictive measures were used where appropriate.
“Where appropriate, legal safeguards had been put in place and the least restrictive measures were used.” from the report
Relatives involved in care
Staff worked with relatives to understand people's needs and preferences, including helping with healthcare choices.
“The service worked with relatives to help give people using the service a voice.” from the report
Incomplete care plans and risk assessments
seriousCare plans did not always identify clinical needs or explain how risks should be managed. This included diabetes care, pressure damage, choking and communication support.
“Peoples' care plans were incomplete and entries were contradictory.” from the report
Infection control and basic care
seriousInspectors found problems with masks, staff training, handwashing facilities, bedding and strong smells in some bedrooms. Some basic personal care, including oral care, was missed for several days.
“The provider had failed to prevent, detect and control the spread of infections.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
seriousMost care staff had not completed important training, including fire safety and learning disability and autism training. Two recruitment files lacked full employment histories and appropriate references.
“We found only 2 out of 20 care staff had completed fire safety training, first aid, diabetes and mental health and learning disabilities including autism and Asperger's.” from the report
Call bells and response times
seriousThe home had not put an effective system in place to prioritise call bells. Inspectors saw staff fail to attend all activations, leaving people at risk of being ignored.
“We saw staff did not attend all call bell activations.” from the report
Weak oversight and records
seriousAudits repeatedly identified problems without ensuring they were fixed. Care and medicines records were inaccurate, and the home had not consistently checked that planned care was delivered.
“The provider did not have effective systems in place to learn and improve care.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person's care plan and risk assessment is complete, consistent and up to date?
- 02Which staff now have completed training in fire safety, diabetes, dementia, learning disabilities and autism, and how is their competence checked?
- 03How are you making sure people receive their planned oral care, personal care, exercise, therapeutic activities and communication support every day?
- 04What changes have been made to ensure call bells are answered promptly and no activation is missed?
- 05How have the Regulation 12, 13, 17 and 19 breaches been fixed, and what evidence can you show the family?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 February 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.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Woodside Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but serious gaps in risk management, medicines and quality checks.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 and 12 May 2022. Inspectors reviewed five care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management checks. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
The home had enough staff and people appeared happy and relaxed. Relatives described staff as caring and kind. Activities were enjoyed, and staff worked with healthcare professionals to support people's health.
However, care plans did not always give staff enough detail about health risks, distress behaviours or skin injuries. Medicines were not always stored or recorded safely. Some staff were not wearing face masks correctly. The home's checks and audits had not found these problems.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. This was a focused inspection, so the other ratings from the previous inspection were carried forward rather than reassessed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Staff had time to spend with people.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and positive care
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw a positive atmosphere, with people happy and relaxed.
“There was a positive culture within the service, people were happy and relaxed.” from the report
Enjoyable activities
An activities coordinator arranged crafts, music, entertainers and outings. People were seen taking part and enjoying themselves.
“On the day of our inspection, people were crafting whilst singing and dancing to music they enjoyed.” from the report
Work with health professionals
Staff worked with healthcare professionals, including making dietitian referrals when people lost weight. A weekly GP visit had also been arranged.
“Staff and the manager worked in partnership with other professionals including healthcare professionals.” from the report
Risk information was incomplete
seriousCare plans did not always explain how staff should manage important health and behaviour risks. This included diabetes, catheters, distress behaviours and skin injuries.
“Risks to people's health were not consistently managed.” from the report
Medicines were not always managed safely
seriousSome medicine records were not double-signed. Creams were stored in people's rooms, were not always dated when opened and did not have records showing when they were applied.
“Medicines administration and management was not always safe.” from the report
Checks did not find problems
seriousThe home's audits and checks did not identify the issues found during the inspection. This meant the provider did not have reliable oversight of safety and quality.
“The provider failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Face masks were not used consistently
needs fixingInspectors saw staff without the required protective equipment or wearing masks incorrectly, including below the nose.
“We observed staff not to be wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) or to be wearing PPE incorrectly, for example face masks under their nose.” from the report
Incidents were not always recorded
needs fixingStaff described several incidents involving one person pulling or dragging another, but only one had been documented. Some incidents were also recorded on the wrong forms.
“The provider could not be assured that all incidents were being documented in order to review and look for patterns and trends.” from the report
- 01What has been changed in care plans for people with diabetes, catheters, distress behaviours and skin injuries?
- 02How are you checking that all medicines, including creams, are stored, dated, administered and recorded safely?
- 03What evidence can you show that the Regulation 12 and Regulation 17 breaches have been fixed?
- 04How do your current audits identify problems that the inspection found were previously missed?
- 05How are staff being monitored to make sure face masks and other protective equipment are used correctly?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key-question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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.
Every inspection of Woodside Residential Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Woodside Residential Care Home →
- June 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Woodside Residential Care Home →
- October 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.