CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Westcliff Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by improved risk assessments, infection control, medicines systems and incident monitoring. Inspectors recommended a review of night staffing levels, including how emergencies would be managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had training and supervision, people had enough food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals. Consent and best-interest decisions were recorded where needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Caring observations were positive, including staff interactions with people, but there was no current rating for Caring in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a current Responsive rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management checks and audits had improved and were helping identify and address shortfalls. Care plans were reviewed, and people and staff had opportunities to share their views.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found improved safety, care and management, but recommended a review of night staffing.
The CQC carried out an unannounced focused inspection on 12 December 2022. It looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led. The home supported 29 people at the time, in a service registered for up to 33.
Inspectors found improvements in infection control, the building, care plans, risk assessments and management checks. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had suitable training, people had enough food and drink, and the home worked with health professionals.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations found at the previous inspection. However, inspectors recommended that night staffing levels should be reviewed.
Improved risk management
Risk assessments and care plans had been updated to guide staff. Moving and handling training had also improved.
“People's risk assessments had been reviewed, updated and provided guidance for staff in how risks to people were to be mitigated.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff who administered them had training and competency checks.
“Medicine administration records showed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Good food and healthcare
People had enough to eat and drink, with records used to monitor risks such as dehydration and malnutrition. The home worked with several health professionals.
“We observed people at lunch, it was a social occasion, people chose where to sit and chatted with their friends” from the report
Stronger management checks
The home had improved its auditing and monitoring systems. These were being used to find and address problems.
“These supported the management team to identify and address any shortfalls.” from the report
Night staffing
needs fixingInspectors recommended reviewing staffing levels at night against people's dependency needs, domestic duties and the safe management of emergencies.
“We recommend the provider review the night staffing levels” from the report
- 01How many staff are normally on duty at night, and how is this matched to each person's needs?
- 02What would happen if there were a fire or another emergency at night with the current staffing level?
- 03How will you make sure the improved care plans and risk assessments stay accurate and up to date?
- 04How do you check that medicine records remain complete and that any discrepancies are dealt with quickly?
- 05What is the current feedback from people and relatives about the Caring and Responsive parts of the service?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 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.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but safety checks, infection control and management systems were not reliable enough.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 June 2022. Inspectors first looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led after concerns about safety, visiting and care. They widened the inspection to include Effective after finding concerns about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
The home was caring and responsive in several ways. People said they were happy, received enough food and drink, had activities and could see relatives. Staff responded promptly to requests and people could access health professionals when needed.
However, inspectors found unsafe moving and handling, incomplete and out-of-date care records, infection control risks and weaknesses in medicines checks. The home did not have a registered manager in post, and its systems did not reliably identify or fix problems.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Responsive was rated Good. Caring was not given a separate rating in this inspection.
Kind interactions
People said they were happy with the home and staff. Inspectors saw staff responding promptly and treating people positively.
“People told us they felt their independence was respected.” from the report
Food and drink
People gave consistently positive feedback about the food and choices. Staff supported people to eat at their own pace.
“Without exception, we received positive feedback from people using the service about the food and choices of food they were provided with.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had access to social and one-to-one activities, the garden and visits from relatives. Inspectors saw people enjoying games and a quiz.
“People told us there was a range of social and one to one activity which reduced isolation and boredom.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People could access health professionals when needed. Advice from professionals was included in people's care.
“The management team told us they had good relationships with health professionals and made referrals where appropriate” from the report
Unsafe moving and handling
seriousInspectors saw a person being moved by pulling them up by their waistband. They said this was unsafe and undignified, and recommended updated staff training.
“We observed an unsafe and undignified method of moving and handling being used, including pulling a person up by their waistband.” from the report
Infection control
seriousInspectors found dirty or damaged areas and equipment, including shared slings and unsuitable storage. They were not assured that infection risks were being controlled properly.
“Infection control systems were not robust to reduce the risks to people using the service.” from the report
Out-of-date care records
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not reflect people's current needs. Records also did not always record decisions about care when someone became unwell or needed end of life care.
“Some care plans which were dated were written in 2020 and 2021, therefore they were not always up to date.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe home's audits had not identified several problems found by inspectors. There had also been no registered manager in post since January 2021.
“The systems in place for monitoring the service were not robust, this was because the shortfalls we had identified during our inspection visit had not been independently identified by the service.” from the report
Lap belt assessment
needs fixingA person living with dementia was supported to use a lap belt, but records did not explain whether this was restraint or whether less restrictive options had been considered.
“It was not clear if other less restrictive methods had been explored.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken since the inspection to stop unsafe moving and handling, and how is each staff member's competence now checked?
- 02How are current care plans and risk assessments reviewed, dated and updated when people's needs change?
- 03What changes have been made to infection control, including the cleaning and storage of slings, hoists and bathroom equipment?
- 04How are medicines now audited as a whole, including checking that opened medicines are labelled?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management, and what is the progress of the registered manager application?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led, widened to include Effective; Caring was not separately inspected and ratings for any non-inspected question carried over where applicable. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 2022 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 The Westcliff Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2022Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.