Wayside Care Home

“At this inspection we found the provider was in breach of regulations regarding safe care and treatment, environment, good governance and submitting statutory notifications.”

“People were not effectively protected from avoidable harm. There were concerns regarding fire safety, infection prevention and control, environmental risks, and unsafe care practices. Significant risks, including blocked fire exits, inadequate evacuation arrangements, and poor maintenance of the premises, placed people at ongoing risk and had not been addressed in a timely way. Governance systems failed to identify or respond effectively to these concerns.”

“Care planning and risk assessment processes were inconsistent, incomplete, and in some cases inaccurate, meaning staff did not always have reliable information to deliver safe or effective care.”

“People were not consistently treated with dignity or respect, and there was evidence of poor practice, including the use of inappropriate language and a lack of personalised care. Care was not routinely tailored to individual needs, preferences, or protected characteristics, with limited evidence people were meaningfully involved in decisions about their care or daily lives.”

“Systems intended to ensure safe and effective staffing were inadequate, with gaps in training, inconsistent staff competence, and unsafe moving and handling practices observed. Leadership had not taken effective action to monitor or address these concerns.”

“The service’s approach to safeguarding and legal compliance was inconsistent. While some processes, were in place, these were undermined by poor recording, lack of clarity, and inconsistent implementation. This meant there was limited assurance people’s rights were consistently protected.”

“People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found inconsistencies in the providers approach to managing DoLS applications and the recording of adherence to conditions. The providers application of the principles did not support best practice. Meaning people could not be assured their rights were protected.”

“There was limited evidence of effective partnership working or communication with external professionals, and information was not always shared or followed up appropriately. This led to gaps in care delivery and reduced assurance people’s needs were being met holistically.”

“Leadership, management, and governance were insufficient to ensure safe, high-quality care. The provider lacked effective oversight of risks, failed to act on known concerns, and did not demonstrate a culture of learning, transparency or continuous improvement. Issues identified at previous inspections remained unresolved, and there was a lack of evidence of sustained improvement.”

“This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care…”