CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Westbury House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and support for visiting and community activities.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 14 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, followed infection control practices, supported testing and vaccination requirements, and had an up-to-date infection control policy. Visiting was supported in line with government guidance.
People were supported to spend time with important people and to go out in the community, with risk assessments in place. The home supported nine people and was registered for up to 11.
The overall service was inspected but not rated. Safe was also inspected but not rated, and the other four areas were not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had effective infection prevention arrangements, including safe PPE use, testing and an up-to-date policy.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Visiting and community access
The home supported visits in line with government guidance. People could also spend time with important people and go out in the community, supported by risk assessments.
“People were supported to spend time with those who were important to them and go out in the community.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures, and what effect could they have on my relative's support?
- 02How do you carry out and review risk assessments for visits and community activities?
- 03How will you support my relative to see important people and go out in the community?
- 04What are your current arrangements for PPE, testing and infection control?
- 05How are visits arranged now, and what happens if there is an infection outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions and gave no overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although the caring rating fell from Outstanding.
Inspectors made an unannounced, comprehensive visit on 19 March 2018. They observed care and staff interactions, checked medicines, care records, recruitment files and audits, and spoke with relatives, staff and health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably checked staff, safe medicines practices, updated support plans, suitable training and good links with health services.
People were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible and take part in activities they enjoyed. Staff understood people's communication, treated them with respect and supported their relationships and community involvement.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in December 2015. However, Caring fell from Outstanding to Good because the home had not sustained its previous level.
Safe staffing
Staffing was planned around people's individual needs, including one-to-one and two-to-one support. Extra staff were available when people went into the community.
“Staff were deployed in appropriate numbers within the service to keep people safe based on a full assessment of people's care needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff had guidance for medicines given only when needed and for supporting people who declined them.
“Medicines administration records were complete and accurate.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, understood their individual communication and responded when people were distressed. Privacy, dignity and personal choices were respected.
“We observed that people were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans covered people's daily lives, preferences, goals and ways of communicating. Activities were adapted to people's interests and responses.
“Support plans were person centred and comprehensive, with every area of the person's life broken down into sections.” from the report
Good leadership and oversight
Inspectors found a stable team, clear values and regular audits. Relatives and professionals said communication was positive and the home was well managed.
“There continued to be a positive culture and atmosphere between the registered manager, staff and people.” from the report
Caring rating reduced
minorThe home had previously been rated Outstanding for Caring but did not sustain that rating at this inspection. It was rated Good instead.
“At this inspection we found that the service had not been able to sustain the outstanding rating.” from the report
- 01What has the home done since this inspection to improve or sustain the standard of caring, given that the Caring rating fell from Outstanding to Good?
- 02What is the current staffing level for people who need one-to-one or two-to-one support, including when they go into the community?
- 03How are Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications followed up when authorisation is still awaiting a decision from the local authority?
- 04How does the home use people's body language, gestures and behaviour to identify distress, illness or changes in their needs?
- 05How are PRN medicines and STOMP plans reviewed, and what non-medication support is offered when someone becomes distressed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 May 2018 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 Westbury House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 April 2014.
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.