CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 330 Westward Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable safeguarding, risk management, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection-control systems. People were supported to take positive risks while being protected from avoidable harm.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their needs and choices. Staff were trained and supported, although the home had identified that the regularity of staff supervision needed to improve.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make daily decisions, maintain family relationships and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- The home provided highly individualised support. People were helped to develop confidence, take part in community activities, gain employment, manage parts of their medicines and have greater control over their lives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider's values were reflected in staff practice, and quality checks were used to monitor the service. A manager was in post but was still applying to register with CQC.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding responsive care that promoted choice, independence and meaningful lives.
Inspectors visited without notice on 18 July 2019. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, observed care and activities, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home supported seven people with a learning disability and/or autism. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness, supported to make choices and helped to access health care, work, activities and the local community.
Responsive care was rated Outstanding. Inspectors found especially strong support for people to build confidence, develop skills, take positive risks and live more independently. The other four areas were rated Good.
The overall Good rating was the same as at the previous inspection. Responsive care improved from Good to Outstanding. Inspectors noted that the manager was not yet registered with CQC and that the regularity of staff supervision needed to improve.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, build skills and become more independent. Staff balanced encouragement with suitable checks on risk.
“These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff speaking kindly to people and respecting their privacy, dignity and role as decision-makers in their own home.
“Staff spoke to people in a kind and friendly manner and supported people as needed.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were ordered, stored, given and checked safely. People were also supported to understand their medicines and work towards managing them more independently.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and safe medicines management processes were being used in line with national guidance.” from the report
Positive leadership
The provider and manager used checks, feedback and staff ideas to monitor care and plan improvements.
“Effective quality assurance checks were carried out by the provider and manager to monitor the quality of the service people received” from the report
Manager registration
needs fixingThere was a manager in post, but they were not yet registered with CQC and were still applying to register. The report does not say that this led to poor care.
“The service had no manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingThe home had identified that staff supervision was not happening as regularly as required by the provider's policy. The manager said this would be addressed.
“The manager shared with us that they had identified that regularity of staff supervision needed to improve” from the report
- 01Has the manager now completed registration with CQC?
- 02How often do staff receive supervision, and how is this monitored?
- 03How would you support my relative to develop their independence and take positive risks safely?
- 04How would you involve my relative in decisions about their care, meals, activities and communication?
- 05How could my relative take part in community activities, volunteering or paid work?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staffing and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 September 2019 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
HF Trust - 330 Westward Road was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 December 2016. The home supported five people at the time, and could accommodate six people with learning disabilities who needed personal care.
Inspectors spoke with people, staff, the manager and one relative. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care records, medicines, staffing, training, recruitment and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, kind care and support for people to make choices and build independence. They also found some gaps in recording risks, daily wellbeing and medicines, which the home addressed immediately or said it would address as a priority.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. Staff also understood people's individual risks.
“People told us they felt safe living in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people warmly and with respect. They protected privacy and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate manner and ensured they were supported to have a good quality of life.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities, household tasks and community life. Some people were helped to travel independently and manage daily activities.
“People were supported to carry out activities in the home and community.” from the report
Monitoring and feedback
The provider and home carried out regular checks. People could raise suggestions and concerns through house meetings and other forums.
“Regular monitoring checks were carried out by the provider and staff to ensure people's needs were being met.” from the report
Risk records were not always clear
needs fixingSome risks were managed in practice but were not clearly recorded in one place. This included a missing specific falls risk assessment and evacuation plans that did not clearly show when they had been reviewed.
“People's risks had been assessed and were being managed by staff, however some of their risks were not always clearly recorded.” from the report
Medicine stock records
needs fixingThe amounts recorded for liquid medicines were not always correct. The home introduced a new system immediately after this was identified.
“However we noted that the stock and volume level of liquid medicines were not always correctly recorded.” from the report
Medicine cabinet security
needs fixingThe medicines cabinet had not been fixed to the wall at the inspection. A purchase order had been raised for a contractor to fix it.
“The medicines cabinet had not been fixed to the wall.” from the report
Daily wellbeing notes
needs fixingRecords did not consistently show people's physical, emotional, mental and social wellbeing each day. The manager gave staff guidance on recording daily notes.
“However there was an inconsistent approach to the regularity of recording people's physical/emotional/mental/social well-being on their daily notes.” from the report
- 01Have the missing or unclear risk assessments, including the falls and evacuation records, now been reviewed and updated?
- 02What protocols are now in place for as-needed medicines and over-the-counter homely remedies?
- 03Has the medicines cabinet been fixed securely, and how are liquid medicine stocks checked now?
- 04How do staff record each person's daily physical, emotional, mental and social wellbeing?
- 05Which specific care decisions now have recorded mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions where needed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 2017 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 330 Westward Road
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.