CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westbrook House Integrated Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about several infection control arrangements, including visitors, admissions, protective equipment and testing. They were not assured that the proposed designated setting met good infection prevention and control guidelines.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; infection controls had strengths, but the proposed designated setting was not yet suitable.
Inspectors visited the home on 20 October 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. They looked at infection prevention and control arrangements because the local authority had identified the home as a possible designated setting for people leaving hospital with Covid-19.
Inspectors found clean, uncluttered areas, cleaning checks, suitable equipment and space for social distancing. They were also assured about visitor controls, shielding, admissions, personal protective equipment and testing.
However, the proposed designated setting was not ready. People were still living in the proposed area, a separate staff team had not been agreed and building work had not started. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide a standard overall quality rating.
Clean designated area
The proposed designated area was clean and uncluttered. It had its own equipment and a kitchenette for snacks and drinks.
“The designated care setting was uncluttered and clean. The area had its own equipment and a kitchenette for preparing snacks and drinks.” from the report
Space and facilities
Bedrooms had en-suite bathrooms, and the area had outside space and communal areas large enough for social distancing.
“The designated care setting had its own outside space and communal areas were large enough to support social distancing.” from the report
Cleaning checks
There were daily and weekly cleaning checks, with monthly audits by the cleaning supervisor.
“There were cleaning schedules in place with daily and weekly check sheets and monthly auditing by the cleaning supervisor.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, shielding and social distancing safely.
“We were assured of the provider's safe management of infection, prevention and control.” from the report
Designated setting not ready
seriousThe proposed designated area was not suitable because people were still living there, a dedicated staff team had not been agreed and building work had not started.
“there were still service users living in the proposed area, plans had not been agreed to confirm a designated staff team and building works to reconfigure the space had not started.” from the report
Further guidance needed
needs fixingInspectors were not assured that the proposed designated setting met good infection prevention and control guidance. They signposted the provider to guidance to improve its approach.
“We were not assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting at this inspection.” from the report
- 01Has anyone moved out of the proposed designated area since the inspection?
- 02Has a separate, dedicated staff team for the designated setting now been agreed?
- 03Have the building works to reconfigure the area started or been completed?
- 04What changes were made after inspectors signposted guidance on infection prevention and control?
- 05How are entry, exit and staff breaks being managed to maintain separation and social distancing?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures for the proposed designated setting, so the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 November 2020 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, April 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The unannounced inspection took place on 2 March 2020. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, a relative and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings and good support with health, food and drink.
The previous inspection had found problems with catheter care, diabetes care, medicines and quality checks. Inspectors found these issues had been addressed, and the home was no longer in breach of the regulations.
Safer care after earlier concerns
Earlier problems with catheter care, diabetes support and medicines had been addressed. Staff had the guidance and training needed to manage these areas.
“At this inspection these risks were well managed, and staff had received training in these areas.” from the report
Support to return home
The enablement unit helped people improve mobility and develop independence. Inspectors found positive outcomes for people working towards returning home.
“The aim of the enablement unit was for people to return home and prevent a readmission to hospital and the service achieved positive outcomes for this.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were patient, compassionate and respectful. People were involved in their care and encouraged to do as much as they could for themselves.
“There were positive, calm and respectful interactions throughout the inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, interests, preferences and what made them happy or upset. Staff knew people's individual needs.
“People's care plans were person-centred as they had involved the person and those important to them.” from the report
Good management checks
The management team used audits, feedback, complaints and incident reviews to identify improvements. Inspectors found that the home's governance systems were now effective.
“Quality assurance systems, such as audits, checks, observations and daily monitoring were used effectively to monitor all aspects of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you manage my relative's specific health risks, including catheter care or diabetes if either applies?
- 02How do you record and check medicines that are given only when needed, including pain relief?
- 03How would you support my relative to maintain or increase their independence and, where suitable, return home?
- 04How would you adapt communication, activities and the environment for a person living with dementia?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning, reviews and decisions if concerns or needs changed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 April 2020 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 Westbrook House Integrated Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Westbrook House Integrated Care Centre →
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Westbrook House Integrated Care Centre →
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.