CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westerfield House Care Ltd
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Westerfield House Care Ltd was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted visit.
Inspectors visited on 15 December 2020. The announced inspection was targeted at infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes.
They found the home clean and hygienic. Staff had infection control training, used personal protective equipment correctly, and had enough supplies. The layout supported social distancing, and infection control policies followed current government guidance.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, admissions, testing, protective equipment, hygiene and managing outbreaks. They also signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
The home was inspected but not rated. This visit did not provide an overall quality rating or ratings for the other four areas.
Clean environment
The home was clean, hygienic and free from unpleasant smells throughout the inspection.
“The service was clean, hygienic and free of unpleasant odours throughout.” from the report
Protective equipment
There were enough supplies of personal protective equipment, and staff were observed using it correctly.
“There was sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), with designated stations in the service for staff to access.” from the report
Risk assessments
Individual risks had been assessed with people and their representatives and were reviewed regularly.
“Individual risk assessments had been conducted in consultation with people who used the service and or their representatives.” from the report
Infection control systems
The home had infection control policies and procedures based on government guidance. Inspectors were assured that outbreaks could be prevented or managed effectively.
“The provider had appropriate infection control policies and procedures in place.” from the report
Further development identified
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach. The report does not explain which part of the approach needed development.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What part of your infection prevention and control approach did inspectors say needed further development?
- 02How are visitors currently prevented from catching or spreading infections?
- 03How do you carry out testing for people living here and for staff?
- 04How do you manage new admissions safely during an infection outbreak?
- 05How are protective equipment supplies and staff use checked now?
This was an announced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines records and quality systems still being improved.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 23 August 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicine arrangements, staff files and quality checks.
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 support, personalised care and respectful relationships.
People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to keep their independence, relationships, hobbies and community links. Complaints were handled, and the management team used feedback and audits to make improvements.
The report also says some quality systems were still being developed. Medicines audits had found inconsistencies in records, plans were being made to improve documentation, and one staff member said dementia training could be more in depth.
Personalised care
Care was planned around each person's needs, wishes and preferences. Records were reviewed and updated when circumstances changed.
“People received care and support that was personalised to them in line with their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff were described and observed as caring, patient and respectful. People were supported with privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff respected people's privacy and dignity and interacted with them in a caring, compassionate and professional manner.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff with appropriate recruitment checks and skills. Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely, with audits in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills to meet people's needs.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities and trips they chose, while keeping contact with relatives and other important relationships.
“They were supported to pursue their hobbies and to participate in activities of their choice.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingAudits had found inconsistencies in medicine records. The home responded with staff communications, competency checks and further training, and planned to introduce electronic records.
“where the audits on medicines identified inconsistencies in records, internal communications to staff on best practice” from the report
Further quality improvements
minorThe home's quality assurance systems and documentation were still being developed. Planned work included making records more consistent and embedding a more person-centred approach.
“The provider's quality assurance systems were currently being further developed to identify and address shortfalls” from the report
Dementia training depth
minorThe report records that one staff member thought some training, particularly dementia awareness, could be more detailed.
“I do think some of it [training] could be more in depth - dementia awareness.” from the report
- 01Have the planned electronic medicines records been introduced, and how do you check that medicine records are complete?
- 02What dementia awareness training do staff receive now, and how is their understanding checked?
- 03What changes have been made to care documentation to make records consistent and fully person-centred?
- 04How do you decide when staffing levels need to increase as people's needs change?
- 05How are comments and complaints recorded, and can you explain a recent improvement made after feedback?
This was the first comprehensive ratings inspection of the home and covered all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 October 2017 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 Westerfield House Care Ltd
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 January 2016.
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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.