CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Woodside Resource Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks, staffing, medicines, equipment and infection control were generally managed safely. Inspectors found that some staff were not always clear about aspects of one person's catheter care.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and reviewed, and staff supported healthcare, nutrition and decision-making. Some staff had not had regular supervision meetings, although dates had been scheduled.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported independence and involved people and relatives in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's wishes and choices and were reviewed monthly. Activities had improved, but informal complaints were not being documented.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, regular audits and systems for gathering feedback. Staff said they felt supported and could raise concerns.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Woodside Resource Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few areas needing attention.
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection on 22 January 2020. The inspection team spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs, supported their choices, and provided a range of activities.
The home had improved since the previous rating of Requires Improvement in 2016. Earlier concerns about staffing, medicines records, care records and activities had been addressed sufficiently for the previous breaches to no longer apply.
Inspectors still found some staff were unclear about parts of catheter care, some staff had not received regular supervision, and informal complaints were not being recorded. The manager said these issues would be acted on.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that people were safe and well cared for. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and risks were assessed and managed.
“People said they felt safe and well cared for. Relatives confirmed this was the case.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines records were complete and that senior staff had suitable training and competency checks.
“Medicine records viewed were complete with no unexplained gaps.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff formed positive relationships with people, respected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to make choices and remain independent.
“People were treated with dignity and respect by staff.” from the report
Activities had improved
People could take part in a broad range of group and one-to-one activities, including crafts, gardening and entertainment from outside the home.
“People were able to participate in a wide range of activities.” from the report
Catheter care knowledge
needs fixingInspectors found that staff were not always clear about some aspects of one person's catheter care. The manager said catheter care procedures would be reviewed.
“We identified staff were not always clear on some aspects of a person's catheter care.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingSome staff had not had regular supervision meetings with the management team. The manager showed inspectors that dates had been scheduled.
“We found some staff had not had regular supervision meetings with the management team.” from the report
Informal complaints were not recorded
minorFormal complaints were managed appropriately, but informal complaints were not being documented. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Informal complaints were not being documented. We discussed this with the registered manager who told us they would action this.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the home’s catheter care procedures since the inspection?
- 02How are staff trained and checked as competent to provide catheter care?
- 03How often do staff receive supervision meetings, and how is this monitored?
- 04How are informal complaints now recorded, investigated and followed up?
- 05How are staffing levels monitored, including overnight in the nursing unit?
This was an unannounced re-inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 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 Resource Centre
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Middlesbrough
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 £1,230 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I found Alison to be kind , caring helpful concencious... Alison has a heart of gold”
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.