Woodside Residential Care Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement.

At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

People were supported by staff to maintain good health. Staff worked with external professionals to help provide the best and most appropriate care to people, following advice and guidance when needed.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

People were provided kind and compassionate care by staff. Staff treated people as individuals and supported them in their independence.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

People received person-centred care and had equal opportunities to access external support when required. Staff knew people’s needs well and provided care in line with these.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant the service management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

We found improvements at this inspection from our previous visit, although these improvements needed to be embedded further. The registered manager had recruited a strong team of staff, however there needed to be stronger processes in place to ensure that everyone took responsibility to monitor people’s care to ensure it was consistently good and safe. This was a continued breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.