CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westcliff House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks to people's health and safety were understood and managed. Medicines, recruitment, safeguarding arrangements and staffing were also found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's care achieved good outcomes and their nutritional needs were reviewed. Staff were trained and worked with health professionals when people's needs changed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were supportive and inspectors observed respectful, sensitive and compassionate care. People were involved in decisions and their privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had been improved to include people's preferences and staff understood their needs. People could choose activities, although the home identified a need to develop more goals and ambitions.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had improved quality checks and used an improvement plan to record work needed and completed. Staff and people said the home was well managed, with clear responsibilities.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful and person-centred care, with some bedrooms less clean than others and people needing more support to develop goals.
The inspection visits took place on 10 and 13 January 2020. One inspector spoke with 16 people, two relatives and 10 staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements since December 2018, especially in risk assessments, care plans and quality monitoring. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable and people said they felt safe and supported.
People were involved in decisions about their care and were treated with dignity and respect. Food choices and social activities had improved since the previous inspection. Some bedrooms were less clean than others, and the home said it wanted to help people develop more goals and ambitions.
Risks were managed
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clearer instructions about people's needs and how to reduce risks. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“Care plans and risk assessments described risks associated with these needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained staff who had been assessed as competent. The home also checked medicine practices regularly.
“Medicines were managed safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described good relationships with staff. Inspectors observed care that was respectful, sensitive and compassionate.
“Our observations showed staff supported people respectfully with sensitivity, compassion and humour.” from the report
People had choice and control
People were involved in decisions about their support and could choose whether to join activities. Staff respected people's decisions and promoted independence.
“People told us they were fully involved in making decisions about their care and support.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its quality assurance and improvement planning since the previous inspection. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities.
“The registered manager had continued to develop a service improvement plan” from the report
Bedroom cleanliness varied
minorSome people's bedrooms were less clean than others. The report linked this to people's mental health, self-neglect and reluctance to accept help, although the manager said people were becoming more willing to receive support.
“As at the pervious inspection in December 2018, we found some were in a better state of cleanliness than others.” from the report
More goals could be developed
minorThe manager said people had few goals and ambitions and were generally happy to remain stable and well. The home was looking at ways to help people think about their future and develop more hobbies.
“The registered manager told us people had few goals and ambitions, with people happy to remain stable and well.” from the report
- 01How will you help my relative set and work towards personal goals or ambitions?
- 02What support would you provide if my relative struggled to keep their bedroom clean or accept help with this?
- 03How much choice would my relative have over evening meals and activities?
- 04How are my relative's risks recorded, reviewed and explained to the staff supporting them?
- 05How would you involve my relative in decisions about their care and support?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the home, the care provided and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 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, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but some health risks and care records were not managed safely.
This was a planned inspection after the previous Requires Improvement rating. Inspectors visited on 3 and 4 December 2018. They spoke with 12 people and staff, and checked care records, medicines, training, complaints and quality checks.
People generally said they felt safe and had respectful relationships with staff. Medicines, staffing, recruitment, fire safety and staff training were managed well. Inspectors rated Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good.
However, some risk assessments and care plans did not explain people's needs or guide staff clearly. Staff had not followed all safety measures, including for pressure area care and persistently high blood glucose levels. The home also needed to improve its monitoring and quality systems.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement. This was the third time the home had received this rating. It had improved since the previous inspection, when Well-led was rated Inadequate, but the required improvements were not fully complete.
Kind and respectful care
People had close relationships with staff, and inspectors saw a relaxed atmosphere where people were treated with kindness and respect.
“Our observations showed people were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and were able to live independently, including coming and going from the home.
“People's independence and rights to make choices about their care were respected.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Medicines were received, stored, administered and checked through established systems. Staff administering medicines had their training and competence checked.
“Medicine administration records and the balance of each person's medicines were checked twice a day to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Staff support and training
Staff received relevant training and regular supervision and appraisals. They said they felt supported by the provider and manager.
“Staff had opportunities for regular supervision and appraisal of their work performance.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had started refurbishing and redecorating. Carpets that had previously created a trip risk had been replaced.
“Since the previous inspection, the home had commenced a programme of refurbishment and redecoration, which was on-going.” from the report
Health risks were not managed consistently
seriousSome people's risks were not recorded properly, and staff did not always follow the required safety measures. This included missing pressure area care records and a failure to seek medical advice when high blood glucose levels continued.
“This meant staff had not sought medical advice when this person's blood glucose levels remained high for a period of time.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not explain what people could do for themselves or how staff should provide support. This could make support less consistent.
“Some care plans did not describe what people could do for themselves or provide detailed information about how staff should provide support.” from the report
Behaviour was not monitored fully
needs fixingThe home had taken steps to reduce behaviour that could affect others and had sought specialist advice. However, it did not record how often the behaviour happened or what might trigger it.
“However, records were not being maintained of how often, and under what circumstances, this person engaged in this behaviour.” from the report
Limited social activities
minorSome people wanted more time with staff for leisure activities and more trips outside the home. Records did not always show people's involvement in social and leisure activities.
“We'd like to go out more, we never go out on a trip anywhere together.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorSome people enjoyed the food, but others thought its quality could be improved and wanted alternatives to soup and sandwiches in the evening.
“Occasionally it would be nice to have something other than sandwiches, something different” from the report
- 01Have all people's care plans and risk assessments now been rewritten and checked, particularly for pressure area care and diabetes?
- 02What system now makes sure staff follow the correct action when someone's blood glucose remains high?
- 03How are you recording and reviewing the behaviour that inspectors said was not being monitored consistently?
- 04What changes have been made to the evening meals and how are residents' food preferences being used?
- 05What extra social activities, trips or staff time are now available for people who asked for more engagement?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, and it checked both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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.
Every inspection of Westcliff House
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 February 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.