CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westacres
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, staffing levels were appropriate, and medicines were handled safely. They noted that one person's needs had changed after a hospital discharge and that the home was seeking further funding for more support.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans gave staff detailed, practical guidance, including for complex tasks and specialist equipment. People had access to healthcare professionals, and staff supported eating, drinking and day-to-day choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and familiar with people's preferences and communication methods. People were supported to make choices and maintain relationships with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised and flexible, including choices about meals, activities and daily routines. People were supported to attend appointments, use community services and take part in leisure activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had oversight of the home, worked alongside staff and used audits and action plans to monitor improvements. Staff and families were involved through meetings and surveys.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Westacres was rated Good in all areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor issues about the building and communication support.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 28 February 2019. One inspector reviewed records, observed care, spoke with people, staff and the manager, and obtained feedback from two health professionals.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and complex or physical health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, staff were skilled and caring, medicines were managed safely, and people could make day-to-day choices.
Care plans were detailed and regularly updated. People were supported with healthcare, meals, activities, community visits and family relationships. The home was clean and well managed, although some water damage was being repaired and specialist communication aids had not yet been found.
The home received Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection, published on 27 September 2016.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, staff understood safeguarding, and medicines were administered and recorded safely.
“People continued to be safe and protected from avoidable harm. People's needs were assessed and plans were in place and followed to promote their safety.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and used facial expressions, gestures and other communication to understand their wishes. They protected people's privacy and dignity.
“Staff took time to interact with people and to look for facial expressions or hand gestures as a means of communicating and listening to the people they supported.” from the report
Personalised choices
People had flexible meal times and choices about food, activities and how they spent their day. Their choices were respected.
“Timetables such as meal times were flexible and relaxed.” from the report
Strong management
The manager was visible and approachable. The home used audits, action plans, meetings and surveys to monitor care and involve families and staff.
“A quality assurance system was in place to enable the registered manager to monitor and identify any shortfalls in the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Water damage
minorInspectors saw water damage on the hallway ceiling from a leaking bathroom. Staff said repairs were due that week, and the issue was recorded in a health and safety audit.
“We noticed some water damage on the ceiling in the hallway.” from the report
Communication aids
minorSome people could not communicate verbally. Staff knew them well, but suitable specialist communication aids had not been found at the time of inspection.
“At the time they had not found any specialist communication aids to support people but told us they would keep this under review.” from the report
- 01Has the water damage to the hallway ceiling been fully repaired, and has the cause of the leak been resolved?
- 02Have suitable specialist communication aids now been found for people who cannot communicate verbally?
- 03How would you increase support if my relative's needs changed after illness or hospital treatment?
- 04What is the current position on any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals for my relative?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews, meetings and decisions about changing needs?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the home itself; the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 April 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, September 2016
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and individualised care, with enough staff and quality checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 31 August 2016. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, the manager and care staff. They also observed care and reviewed care files, staff recruitment records, medicines records, audits and policies.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe and relaxed. Staff had completed appropriate checks and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were stored and given safely.
Staff were trained and supported. They respected people's choices, dignity and independence. Care plans were personalised, activities reflected people's interests, and people were supported to use local services and see health professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report found systems for complaints, gathering views and checking the quality of care.
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, including supporting individual programmes and community activities. The home used regular bank staff rather than agency staff.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs, which included being able to support people with their individual programs and access to the community.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and understood their routines, preferences and communication needs. People were supported to spend their time in ways they chose.
“Staff knew people well and how best to communicate with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included individual information about health, medicines, likes, dislikes and preferred support. People were helped to take part in activities and maintain independence.
“The support plans were very person centred and each contained documentation such as health passports.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager and provider carried out regular checks, including audits of medicines and the environment. Actions were created when improvements were identified.
“The registered manager and provider had a number of internal quality monitoring systems in place to continually review and improve the quality of the service provided to people.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure there are enough familiar staff when there is sickness or annual leave?
- 02How often are medicines audits completed, and how are any issues followed up?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 04What activities and community opportunities are currently available for each person?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern, and how will they be kept informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 2016 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 Westacres
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 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.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.