CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westcliffe Villa
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some important safety checks were overdue or missing, including the electrical inspection and choking risk assessments. Inspectors also found a missing window restrictor, although these issues were addressed during or shortly after the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, communication, nutrition and support needs were assessed and staff knew them well. People were supported to make choices, access healthcare and live as independently as possible.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and compassionate, respected privacy and dignity, and understood people's communication methods, preferences and sensory needs.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was reviewed with people and adapted to their needs and wishes. People were supported with activities, family relationships, communication and access to the local community.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The culture was described as positive, calm and open, but quality systems did not consistently identify or resolve safety and care-record problems. This was a breach of Regulation 17.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety checks and quality systems were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 and 8 November 2023. Two inspectors, an Expert by Experience and a British Sign Language interpreter spoke with staff, observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, staff records and quality checks.
The home provided kind care and supported people to make choices, stay independent and take part in community activities. Inspectors rated Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good. Staff supported people with medicines, health appointments, communication and everyday choices.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in 2017 to Requires Improvement. Important safety checks were overdue, a window was missing a safety fitting and some choking risk assessments were not in place. The provider's quality checks had not reliably found or fixed these problems, leading to a breach of Regulation 17.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and personal space.
“People received kind and compassionate care that was person-centred and promoted their dignity and privacy because staff understood and responded to people's individual needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, prepare food, do household tasks and take part in their local community.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives.” from the report
Good communication
Staff used British Sign Language, gestures, objects and other methods to help people express themselves and understand information.
“Staff used a range of communication approaches including BSL and objects of reference.” from the report
Support for health needs
People were supported to access healthcare, including dental care, mental health support and hospital care. Staff used hospital passports and other information to help maintain continuity.
“People were effectively supported to access health care.” from the report
Overdue safety checks
seriousThe electrical wiring inspection was out of date. A window was also missing a restrictor, which could increase the risk of someone climbing or falling out.
“The service's Electrical Installation Condition Report was out of date.” from the report
Choking risks not recorded
seriousSome people at increased risk of choking did not have risk assessments explaining what staff should do. The concern was addressed after inspectors raised it.
“Where people were had an increased risk of choking due to health conditions, there were no risk assessments in people's care plans to set out what staff needed to do if a person choked.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's audits had not found or resolved several safety and care-record problems before the inspection. This led to a breach of Regulation 17.
“The provider had failed to effectively assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Some care plans needed updating
needs fixingSupport plans did not always fully reflect people's needs. Inspectors said this was addressed during the inspection.
“People's support plans did not always reflect their needs.” from the report
- 01Has the electrical wiring inspection now been completed, and when is the next one due?
- 02How are choking risks now assessed and recorded in each person's care plan?
- 03What checks now make sure repairs, such as window restrictors and plasterwork, are completed promptly?
- 04How will managers prove that quality audits identify and fix problems before they affect people's safety?
- 05What is the current plan for completing and personalising people's end-of-life care plans?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, premises, staffing, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 January 2024 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 Westcliffe Villa
2 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 June 2021.
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.