Neu Living
Sheffield, S4 · 0.0 km
NursingDementia
Rated 19 months agoReport explained
CQC report explained · a nursing home, run by Portland Care Sheffield
Wood Hill Lodge
522 Grimesthorpe Road, Sheffield, S4 8LE
Goodpublished 3 February 2026, 6 months ago
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
The latest report, explained
What inspectors found, December 2023
Wood Hill Lodge was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks with medicines, care records, infection control and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 and 30 October 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, training files and quality checks.
The home was not safe. Some people missed medicines or received incorrect doses. Records did not always explain people's risks clearly, infection control was poor, and some areas were dirty or damaged. Inspectors also found concerns about choking risks, staffing and incident reporting.
The home was not well-led. Managers' checks had failed to identify serious problems, and staff said they did not feel properly supported. The overall rating was Inadequate, and the home remained in breach of regulations. It was placed in special measures.
What inspectors praised
Visitors were welcome
People could maintain relationships with family and friends, who were welcome to visit without restrictions.
“People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends who were welcome to visit the home without restrictions.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Most staff had safeguarding training and understood how to report concerns. The registered manager had reported some concerns to the safeguarding authority.
“Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding procedures.” from the report
DoLS applications improved
The home had taken action on expired or missing authorisations by submitting new applications and renewal applications.
“The registered manager had submitted new applications and applied to renew peoples DoLS where they had expired.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The recruitment policy included checks intended to help recruit suitable staff.
“The provider's recruitment policy helped them recruit suitable staff.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Medicines were unsafe
seriousPeople missed medicines, received incorrect doses or were given medicines at unsafe times. One person missed 14 doses of anxiety medicine and another received incorrect insulin doses.
“Medicines were not managed safely which placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Risks and choking care
seriousRisk assessments and care plans were sometimes missing, inaccurate or contradictory. Inspectors saw incorrect thickened drinks and unsafe positioning, including one person being put at significant risk of aspiration pneumonia.
“One person was placed at significant risk of aspiration pneumonia because staff had not thickened their fluid properly and it was too thin for them to drink safely.” from the report
Poor cleanliness and maintenance
seriousStaff did not always follow infection control procedures. Some areas, furniture, bedding and equipment were dirty or damaged and could not be cleaned effectively.
“The service was not well maintained. We found areas of the home were not clean and other areas that were not well maintained, which meant they were unable to be thoroughly cleaned.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and monitoring did not identify serious problems with medicines, risks, incidents, infection control, staffing and person-centred care. Some incidents were not reported.
“These had not been effectively identified by the provider's quality assurance or auditing processes.” from the report
Limited person-centred care
needs fixingInspectors saw task-focused care, little engagement and limited social stimulation. People were sometimes left in the same chair or wheelchair all day.
“People were sat in the same chair or wheelchair all day with no change of environment or social stimulation.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01What has changed since the inspection to prevent missed or incorrect medicines, and how are medicine stocks, doses and storage temperatures checked?
- 02How do you make sure each person's choking risk assessment and care plan agree, and that staff prepare thickened drinks correctly?
- 03How are one-to-one hours recorded on rotas and checked to ensure they are actually provided?
- 04What cleaning, repair and infection control work has been completed, including stained furniture, damaged kitchenettes and cluttered storerooms?
- 05What evidence can you show that audits now identify incidents, medicines errors, infection risks and poor care before people are put at risk?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 December 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.
An earlier report, explained
What inspectors found, October 2023
Wood Hill Lodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found breaches involving risk management, staff training and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection. Four inspectors visited on 30 August 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, risk assessments, staff files and management documents.
Inspectors found that risk assessments and care records were not always complete or up to date. Records about repositioning had gaps, incidents were not always followed up properly, and lessons were not consistently used to prevent future harm. Some staff training and supervision were also overdue.
Management systems did not identify these problems reliably. Some safeguarding concerns and reportable events had not been passed on as required, and some DoLS authorisations had expired. The provider sent an action plan after the inspection.
The service was inspected but not rated because this was a targeted inspection, not a full review. The previous provider's rating was Good in a report published on 12 May 2021, but that rating was not changed by this inspection.
What inspectors praised
Staffing levels on the day
Inspectors found that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs during the visit, although staff were not always deployed suitably across the home.
“Observations on the day indicated that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report
Recruitment checks
The home carried out pre-employment checks, including DBS checks, before staff started work.
“Pre-employment checks were carried out prior to staff commencing in post.” from the report
Positive relative feedback
Feedback was mixed, but one relative said staff were willing to help and tried to put problems right.
“Can't fault staff, they are always willing to help, if anything is wrong, they will try and fix it.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
Incomplete risk records
seriousRisk assessments and care plans did not always give staff enough accurate information to support people safely. Gaps in repositioning records meant it was unclear whether required support had been provided.
“risk assessments and care plans were not always in place, accurate or sufficiently detailed to enable staff to support people safely.” from the report
Incidents were not used to prevent harm
seriousIncidents were not always recorded, reported or followed up consistently. Inspectors found that timely action was sometimes missing, including updating records and arranging staff training.
“Incidents had not been consistently recorded, reported, or responded to.” from the report
Training and supervision gaps
seriousNot all staff had completed required training, including First Aid and pressure care training. Supervision and appraisal records were also missing for a long period.
“We found not all staff had completed mandatory training such as First Aid or training to support people with health conditions such as pressure care.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits did not consistently find problems, and managers did not have effective oversight of risks, care records, staff training and delegated tasks.
“The management of safety, risk and governance had not been effective.” from the report
Expired legal authorisations
seriousSome DoLS authorisations had not been renewed within the required timescales. The provider submitted applications after the inspection for people whose authorisations had expired.
“appropriate legal authorisations were not always in place to deprive a person of their liberty.” from the report
Staff deployment and engagement
needs fixingAlthough staffing numbers were sufficient on the inspection day, staff were not always placed appropriately across units. This meant care could become task focused rather than person centred.
“This was reflected in support being task focused with people not being engaged in activities or support being person centred.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
- 01What has been changed to ensure every person's risk assessment and care plan is accurate, detailed and reviewed regularly?
- 02How are repositioning records now checked, and how do you make sure pressure care is provided at the required frequency?
- 03Which staff still need mandatory training, and how are training completion and supervision being monitored?
- 04How are incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed so that lessons are learned and future risks are reduced?
- 05Have all expired DoLS authorisations been renewed, and how are future renewals tracked before they expire?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about risk management, governance and oversight; it did not assess all parts of the five key questions and therefore did not change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 October 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.
The story over the years
Every inspection of Wood Hill Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the service was registered.
- December 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingSafe: InadequateEffective: No published ratingCaring: No published ratingResponsive: No published ratingWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2023Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2022
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2022.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Another option
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Nearby
Other care homes near Sheffield
Requires improvement
Wood Hill Grange
Sheffield, S4 · 0.0 km
NursingDementia
Rated 12 months agocare home
Pexton Grange
Sheffield, S4 · 0.5 km
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained
Norbury Court
Sheffield, S4 · 0.6 km
NursingDementia
Rated 17 months agocare home
Loxley Court
Sheffield, S4 · 0.7 km
NursingDementia
Rated 4 years agocare home
Rosebank Care Home
Sheffield, S4 · 0.7 km
ResidentialDementia
Rated 5 months agocare home