Archived: Woodside Care Home

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home which can provide personal care for up to 42 people. The service is provided in a two-storey building which is attached to a hotel owned by the provider. When we inspected there were no people living in the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were no people using this service when we inspected. However, we found the provider had not ensured the premises were safe and meeting legal requirements, or that any service provided would be safe and well-managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

We did not rate the service at our last inspection because the service was not providing care and no people were living in the service (published 27 August 2022).

The last rating for this service was inadequate (published 24 October 2020).

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection to review the provider’s progress and assess whether they were in a position to begin providing a regulated activity again.

We found the provider had not taken sufficient action and remained in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment), Regulation 15 (Premises and equipment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the Safe and Well-led sections of this report.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodside Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified continued breaches in relation the management of risks, the condition of the premises and leadership and governance of the service at this inspection.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service therefore remains in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were no people using this service when we inspected. However, we found the provider had not ensured the premises were safe and meeting legal requirements, or that any service provided would be safe and well-managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

We did not rate the service at our last inspection because the service was not providing care and no people were living in the service (published 21 December 2021).

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection because the provider informed us they had made improvements and were planning to provide care to people in the future. This inspection was carried out to assure ourselves sufficient improvement had been made so the service could meet the needs of people when admitted.

We found the provider had not taken sufficient action and remained in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. In addition, we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 15 (Premises and equipment)

Follow up

The overall rating for this service is 'Inadequate' and the service remains in 'special measures'. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider's registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions of the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home which can provide personal care for up to 42 people. The service is provided in a two storey building which is attached to a hotel also owned by the provider. When we inspected there were no people living in the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were no people using this service when we inspected. However, we found the provider had not ensured the premises were safe and meeting legal requirements, or that any service provided would be safe and well-managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

We did not rate the service at our last inspection because the service was not providing care and no people were living in the service (published 16 September 2021).

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection because the provider informed us they had made improvements and were planning to provide care to people in the future. This inspection was carried out to assure ourselves sufficient improvement had been made so the service could meet the needs of people when admitted.

We found the provider had not taken sufficient action and remained in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Follow up

The overall rating for this service is 'Inadequate' and the service remains in 'special measures'. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider's registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home which can provide personal care for up to 42 people. The service is provided in a two storey building which is attached to a hotel also owned by the provider. When we inspected there were no people living in the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were no people using this service when we inspected. However, we found the provider had not ensured the premises were safe and meeting legal requirements, or that any service provided would be safe and well managed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update)

We did not rate the service at our last inspection because the service was not providing care and no people were living in the service (published 7 April 2021).

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection because the provider informed us they had made improvements and were planning to provide care to people in the future. This inspection was carried out to assure ourselves sufficient improvement had been made so the service could meet the needs of people when admitted.

We found the provider had not taken sufficient action and remained in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Follow up

The overall rating for this service is 'Inadequate' and the service remains in 'special measures'. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider's registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement

procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 42 people. When we inspected there were no people living in the service.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

There were no people using this service when we inspected.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

We did not rate the service at our last inspection because the service was not providing care and no people were living in the service (published 11 December 2020)

Why we inspected

We carried out this inspection because the provider had informed us they had made improvements and were planning to provide care to people in the future. This inspection was carried out to assure ourselves sufficient improvement had been made so the service could meet the needs of people when admitted.

Follow up

The overall rating for this service is 'Inadequate' and the service remains in 'special measures'. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider's registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 42 people. When we inspected there were no people living in the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were no people using this service when we inspected.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was inadequate and there were multiple breaches of regulation (published 24 October 2020).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted due to concerns received about an alleged breach of conditions on the providers registration. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine the risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern.

Follow up

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service remains in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Woodside Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 42 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection there were 28 people receiving care.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Service users were at an increased risk of acquiring COVID-19 as the provider failed to have systems in place to identify and protect people in the high-risk category.National infection prevention guidelines were not followed. The provider failed to ensure staff and people living in the service were tested regularly for COVID-19 in line with government guidelines.

The service was unclean, the provider failed to ensure there were checks to keep the service clean. Measures were not put in place to protect people if COVID-19 were to get into the service. Some staff were not wearing PPE and some staff were wearing PPE incorrectly.

People were at risk of harm due to poorly managed health conditions such as diabetes and urinary tract infections. People were at increased risk of dehydration and urine infections as there was no oversight of what people drank; fluid charts were not completed or were inconsistent. This increased the risk of dehydration.

People at risk of falls were at risk of harm from falls and altercations between residents due to a lack of review and analysis and inconsistent recording.

Environmental risks were not managed which increased the likelihood of people tripping and falling; equipment was not secured to walls, and lighting was not sufficient. Temperature checks of water were not being carried out which increased the risk of people being harmed from scalding hot water.

People were not protected from abuse. The leadership of the service did not create a positive environment where people felt safe to speak out and report abuse. Incidents such as alleged theft, neglect and physical altercations between people were not reported to the relevant authorities and notifications to the CQC and local authority safeguarding team were not made.

Staffing levels were not sufficient provide safe care to people. Low levels of staffing during the night-time meant staff would not be able to evacuate people safely in an emergency. Low levels of staffing during the daytime meant people did not receive the care they needed to keep them safe from harm from other people living in the service.

The provider failed to ensure adequate leadership or oversight. The service was not person centred and people were provided with institutional care which was task focussed.

The provider failed to create an open culture and failed to investigate serious incidents and share information with partner agencies.

The provider failed to operate effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the service. Their failure to review audits affected the safety and quality of the service. Because of this, outcomes for people were poor and the safety of the service was inadequate and placed people at an avoidable risk of harm.

People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 3 June 2019)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. The inspection was prompted in part due to several concerns received about neglect, staffing and abuse. A decision was made for us to inspect sooner and examine those risks.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.

The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to inadequate. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Enforcement

We are mindful of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on our regulatory function. This meant we took account of the exceptional circumstances arising as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic when considering what enforcement action was necessary and proportionate to keep people safe as a result of this inspection. We will continue to discharge our regulatory enforcement functions required to keep people safe and to hold providers to account where it is necessary for us to do so.

We have identified breaches in relation to Regulation 12 safe care and treatment, Regulation 13 safeguarding, Regulation 17 good governance, Regulation 18 staffing, Regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed and Regulation 18 notification of other incidents (Registration).

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘special measures’. This means we will keep the service under review and, if we do not propose to cancel the provider’s registration, we will re-inspect within 6 months to check for significant improvements.

If the provider has not made enough improvement within this timeframe. And there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall rating, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures. This will mean we will begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will usually lead to cancellation of their registration or to varying the conditions the registration.

For adult social care services, the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it. And it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

People’s experience of using this service:

The provider met the characteristics of ‘Requires Improvement’. This has improved from a rating of ‘Inadequate’ at the last inspection in 2018. More information about this is in the full report.

• People were cared for in a clean, friendly and safe environment. Staff followed good infection control practices. People had their risk of harm assessed and staff knew how to keep them safe. People received their medicines from staff who had been assessed as competent to do so.

• There were enough staff employed with appropriate knowledge, skills and experience to look after people and care for their needs. The manager continued to actively recruit new staff.

• People’s rights were maintained and staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were compliant with conditions laid down in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations. The provider now notified CQC of any events that they are required to tell us about by law.

• People were provided with a nutritious, varied and balanced diet. Their risk of dehydration, malnutrition and obesity were closely monitored by staff and records were accurately maintained.

• Improvements were ongoing to the decoration and furnishings of the home environment. Peoples’ sensory, cognitive, mobility and social needs were identified and respected.

• Lessons were learnt when things went wrong. The manager and staff worked together to make improvements to the service. Good working practices had been introduced within the service. Staff worked across organisational boundaries to support peoples’ health and wellbeing.

• People were cared for by kind, caring and compassionate staff, who respected their privacy and dignity.

• People and their relatives have a say in the running and development of the service.

• The manager was an approachable and visible leader. The manager and their team were committed to improving the quality and standards of care people received. Links are being built with the local community and partner agencies. Significant improvements have been made to the governance framework; leading to improvements in the service.

• People and staff told us that the service had changed since the new manager had come into post.

The service met the characteristics of Good or Requires Improvement in all areas that we inspected. More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Woodside Care Home was last inspected on 13 and 19 June 2019 (report published 25 September 2018) and was rated as Inadequate overall. This was a responsive follow-up inspection to see if the service was Safe and Well-led. At our inspection in September 2017 (report published 05 December 2017) we rated the inspection Requires Improvement overall.

Why we inspected: We asked the provider to complete an improvement plan at our last inspection. We wanted to see if the provider had made progress with their improvement plan and that the service was safe and well-led.

Enforcement: At the time of our inspection there was on-going enforcement action. We had previously imposed a condition on the provider that they could not admit any new service users until we knew that the service was safe and well-led.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about Woodside Care Home until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of the home in May 2015. At this inspection we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 (HCSA). This was because there were shortfalls in the monitoring of service delivery and people's legal rights under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not fully protected. We rated the service as Requires Improvement.

In November 2015 we carried out a focused, follow up inspection to check the registered provider had taken the actions necessary to address the breaches of regulations. We found both breaches had been addressed although the rating of the service remained as Requires Improvement.

In July 2016 we undertook a further comprehensive inspection. We found the progress noted at our November 2015 inspection had not been sustained. We found three breaches of the HSCA. This was because the registered provider was again failing to monitor the quality of service delivery effectively. We also identified concerns about the state of repair of the premises and shortfalls in infection prevention and control practice. The rating of the service remained as Requires Improvement.

In January 2017 we carried out a focused, follow up inspection to check the registered provider had taken the actions necessary to address the breaches of regulations. We found two of the three breaches had been addressed although the registered provider had still not taken sufficient action to address the shortfalls in organisational governance and improve the monitoring of service quality. The rating of the service remained as Requires Improvement.

In September 2017 we carried out a further comprehensive inspection. Again, we found the registered provider had not sustained the progress noted at our January 2017 inspection. We found two breaches of regulations. This was because the provider was still not monitoring the quality of service delivery effectively. We also found the provider was failing to assess and manage potential risks to people’s health and safety and there were shortfalls in the management of people’s medicines. The rating of the service remained as Requires Improvement. Following this inspection the registered provider wrote to us and advised us that action to address the two breaches of regulations would be taken by 31 March 2018.

On 13 and 19 June 2018 we carried out this further focused follow up inspection to check if the registered provider had taken the actions necessary to address the two breaches of regulations found at our September 2017 inspection. This report only covers our findings in relation to these issues. Our inspection was also scheduled in response to information shared with us by the local authority safeguarding and contracting teams. They had visited the home in late May and early June 2018 to investigate concerns primarily relating to the cleanliness of the home and infection control practices. Their investigation was ongoing at the time of our inspection.

At this inspection we were extremely disappointed to find that the quality of service, far from improving, had deteriorated and people were not receiving the safe, well-led service they were entitled to expect. The provider was in continuing breach of both breaches of regulations identified at our previous inspection. This was because of the provider’s ongoing failure to properly assess and mitigate risks to people’s safety and a persistent failure over several years to effectively assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service. We found one further breach of the HCSA. This was because of the provider’s failure to employ sufficient housekeeping and care staff to meet people’s needs and to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. We also found two breaches of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. This was because of the provider’s failure to notify CQC of a serious injury to a service user; deaths of service users and allegations of abuse of service users.

Reflecting the findings of our inspection, we rated the home as 'Inadequate' and placed it in 'Special Measures'.

We also took enforcement action against the registered provider and the registered manager. Details of the action taken can be found at the end of the full version of this report.

In other areas further improvement was also required. We found little evidence that the provider had a systematic approach to responding to significant incidents to reduce the risk of something similar happening in the future. Staff at all levels expressed their concerns at aspects of the registered provider's financial management of the home. There were very few links between the home and the local community.

More positively, since our last inspection we found the provider had taken action to improve the safety of staff recruitment. Staff told us they worked well together in a mutually supportive way. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns under local authority safeguarding procedures.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers (‘the provider’) they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager had an open, accessible style and was liked by his team. Throughout our inspection the registered manager maintained an open and non-defensive approach, despite the many issues of concern we identified. He also talked about his relationship with the provider with admirable candour.

Woodside Care Home can provide accommodation and personal care for 39 older people, people who live with dementia and people who have a physical disability. There were 29 people living in the service at the time of our inspection.

The service was run by a company who was the registered provider. There was a manager whom we registered to be in their post shortly before this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run. In this report when we speak both about the company and the registered manager we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.

At our inspection on 21 July 2016 we found that there were three breaches of the regulations. Two of the breaches had reduced the registered persons' ability to consistently provide people who lived in the service with safe care. In more detail, we found that there were shortfalls in the arrangements that had been made to promote good standards of hygiene and to maintain particular areas of the accommodation. As a result we rated our domain ‘safe’ as ‘Requires Improvement’. The third breach referred to other developments that needed to be made to ensure that the service was well managed. Therefore, we also rated our domain ‘well led’ as ‘Requires Improvement.’ In addition to these concerns, we concluded that changes needed to be made to ensure that people consistently received effective care and so we rated our domain ‘effective’ as ‘Requires Improvement’. As a result of these ratings we concluded that the summary rating for the service was ‘Requires Improvement’.

Shortly after our inspection the registered persons told us that they had made the necessary improvements to address each of our concerns. We completed a further inspection on 26 January 2017 to check on the progress that had been made. We found that sufficient steps had been taken to address the breaches relating to the service’s ability to ensure that people received safe care. We found that new and strengthened provision had been made to promote good standards of hygiene to reduce the risk of people acquiring avoidable infections. We also noted that improvements had been made to the accommodation, although more still needed to be done to provide people with a comfortable setting in which to live. We did not change the rating of our domain ‘safe’ which remained as ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because we needed to see that the improvements which had been made would be sustained.

In relation to our domain ‘well led’, we found that the registered persons had not made enough progress to ensure that the service was robustly managed and so we concluded that the breach had not been met. Therefore, we repeated the breach and rated our domain ‘well led’ as ‘Requires Improvement’. In line with our inspection methodology we did not review what improvements had been introduced to promote the service’s ability to provide people with effective care.

After our inspection the registered persons told us that they had made further improvements to address the concerns we had raised about the management of the service.

At the present inspection we found that a number of improvements had been made to the way in which the service was run. However, these had not resulted in people always receiving a high quality service. Therefore, we concluded that the service was still not fully being managed in the right way and we decided that the breach of the regulations relating to this matter had not been resolved. You can find out what action we have told the registered persons to take in relation to this breach at the end of the full version of this report.

In addition, we found further shortfalls in the arrangements that had been made to provide people with safe care. This was because people had not always been suitably protected from avoidable risks to their health and safety. In addition, we noted that medicines had not consistently been managed safely. We concluded that the shortfall in question was a breach of the regulations. You can find out what action we have told the registered persons to take in relation to this breach at the end of this report.

Our other findings at this inspection were as follows. There were not enough housekeeping and laundry staff on duty to meet the minimum level set by the registered persons. Some of the necessary background checks on new care staff had not been completed in the right way. However, care staff knew how to respond to any concerns that might arise so that people were kept safe from abuse.

Although some care staff had not received all of the training the registered persons said they needed, in practice they knew how to care for people in the right way. People enjoyed their meals and they were helped to eat and drink enough. Care staff had ensured that people received all of the healthcare they needed.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor how registered persons apply the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and to report on what we find. These safeguards protect people when they are not able to make decisions for themselves and it is necessary to deprive them of their liberty in order to keep them safe. In relation to this, the registered persons had not fully ensured that one person only received lawful care. However and more generally, people were helped to make decisions for themselves whenever possible. When people lacked mental capacity the registered persons had ensured that decisions were taken in people’s best interests.

Care staff were kind and people were treated with compassion and respect. People’s right to privacy was promoted and there were arrangements to help them to access independent lay advocacy services if necessary. Confidential information was kept private.

People had been consulted about the care they wanted to receive and they had been given all of the help they needed. Care staff promoted positive outcomes for people who lived with dementia and people were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests. There were arrangements to fairly and quickly resolve complaints.

Good team working had been promoted and staff were encouraged to speak out if they had any concerns about the care people were receiving.

We undertook a focused inspection on 25 January 2017 to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. During this inspection on the 25 January 2017 we found the provider had made some improvements in the areas we had identified. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Woodside Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Woodside Care Home provides care and support for up to 42 people. When we undertook our inspection there were 20 people living at the home. People living at the home were mainly older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks, with some people living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. However, the registered manager was not available during our inspection and a different manager was monitoring the home.

People had not been consulted about the development of the home and quality checks had only just begun to be completed to ensure the home could meet people’s requirements. There had been few meetings with staff to ensure they were aware about the changes within the environment. The clinical governance measures were not robust enough and did not reflect whether lessons had been learnt from audits to measure the quality of the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Some areas of the home which had been in need of repair had improved. Work had been completed to change flooring, redecorate communal areas, new furniture had been purchased and unsafe areas in bathrooms had new flooring. Schedules were in place to monitor the cleanliness of the premises. However, these had only just commenced and not been analysed for effectiveness of the programme. There was no maintenance or refurbishment plan in place to ensure people were living in premises of an acceptable standard.

Infection control prevention procedures had been put in place and staff were aware how to implement them to prevent people from being harmed.

People living at the home were older people. Some people required more assistance either because of physical illnesses or because they were experiencing difficulties coping with everyday tasks and loss of memory.

There was no registered manager in post. However, an interview date was set by CQC for the following week for the current manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. DoLS are in place to protect people where they do not have capacity to make decisions and where it is considered necessary to restrict their freedom in some way. At the time of our inspection there was no one subject to such an authorisation.

We found that there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. The provider had taken into consideration the complex needs of each person to ensure their needs could be met through a 24 hour period.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed, and care planned and delivered through the use of a care plan. However, people were not always involved in the planning of their care and had not always had sight of their care plan. The information and guidance provided to staff in the care plans was however clear. Risks associated with people’s care needs were assessed and plans put in place to minimise risk in order to keep people safe. Care plans were currently under review to ensure all people’s needs were being met.

People were treated with kindness and respect. The staff in the home took time to speak with the people they were supporting. We saw many positive interactions and people enjoyed talking to the staff in the home. The staff on duty knew the people they were supporting and the choices they had made about their care and their lives. People were supported to maintain their independence, choices and control over their lives. Staff had used family and friends as guides to obtain information.

People had a choice of meals, snacks and drinks. Meals could be taken in a dining room, sitting rooms or people’s own bedrooms. Staff encouraged people to eat their meals and gave assistance to those that required it.

The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited. All new staff completed training before working in the home. The staff were aware of their responsibilities to protect people from harm or abuse. They knew the action to take if they were concerned about the welfare of an individual.

People had not been consulted about the development of the home. A new audit process had been put in place and checks on the quality of the services being provided had recently commenced. Therefore the provider had limited information to judge whether the services provided met people’s needs. No systems were in place to monitor the upkeep of the building that adequate fire precautions were being maintained and there was no refurbishment plan in place. Due to building work in progress within the grounds the infection control procedures were being compromised.

People told us they had consented to any prescribed treatment from doctors, or other health and social care professionals. They told us they had been open to options given to them by care staff about how to maintain their independence. This had not always been recorded in the care plans.

The people who used the service told us they knew how to raise a concern but no one had raised any formal complaints. One person told us, "Any issue has been resolved quickly and efficiently." The complaints policy was on display.

People were not asked their opinions about staff recruitment.