CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westerleigh Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home had effective infection prevention and control arrangements. This included visiting, social distancing, admissions, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Westerleigh Nursing Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 July 2021. Inspectors checked how the home was preventing and controlling infections during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home managed visiting, social distancing, admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and possible outbreaks safely. They also found that the infection control policy was up to date.
The home was inspected but not rated. This report only looked at infection prevention and control, so it does not provide an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care.
Safe visiting
The home had a visiting procedure, a designated visiting area and an appointment system. Visits included COVID-19 testing and were supported by a staff member.
“There was a visiting procedure and charter that had been shared with relatives and people's representatives.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and had regular domestic staff following a cleaning programme. Cleaning products had also been reviewed for use during the pandemic.
“The home was clean and there was a team of regular domestic staff who completed a cleaning programme.” from the report
Infection control leadership
An allocated infection control lead had established systems for preventing and controlling infection. Staff received training, updates and checks of their skills.
“There was an allocated infection control lead who had established effective systems and processes for IPC.” from the report
PPE and testing
Inspectors found a good supply of PPE and regular testing for people living in the home and staff. Staff had received specific COVID-19 training.
“There was a good supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff had received specific COVID-19 training.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Is the visiting procedure still in place, and how are visits arranged now?
- 02How do you check that staff use PPE safely and keep their infection control training up to date?
- 03How often are people living in the home and staff tested for infections?
- 04How do you manage cleaning, social distancing and possible infection outbreaks now?
- 05What evidence can you provide about care areas that were not covered by this inspection, such as medicines, staffing and people's experiences?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2021 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 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home needed to improve its leadership and oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. One inspector met people, observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care, medicine, training and management records.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Inspectors found people were treated kindly, involved in decisions, supported with food and healthcare, and given personalised care.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Quality checks were in place, but they had not always prevented problems with pressure-relieving mattress settings, medicine records and staff cover at busy times. The manager corrected some issues during the inspection and sent an action plan afterwards.
The overall rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2016. However, the well-led rating had fallen from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and trusted staff. Safeguarding systems, recruitment checks and infection control were also in place.
“Training, policy guidance and safe systems of work minimised the risk of people being exposed to harm.” from the report
Skilled support
Staff received training, induction and supervision. Inspectors found that staff understood people's care needs and supported good health outcomes.
“Staff applied best practice principles, which led to effective outcomes for people and supported a good quality of life.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff showed patience and kindness. They promoted privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in care decisions.
“People were observed to be treated with kindness and were positive about the staff's caring attitude.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests, communication needs and health conditions. People were offered choices about daily routines, meals and activities.
“People were supported to exercise choice and control in their day to day lives and were empowered to make their own choices about what they do with their time.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe home had regular audits, but they had not always led to consistent improvements. The well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
“At this key question has now deteriorated to requires improvement.” from the report
Pressure-relieving equipment
needs fixingOne air-flow mattress was set at twice the correct level. Staff corrected it immediately and introduced twice-daily checks, but similar recording concerns had been identified earlier.
“We did find an air flow mattress on twice the setting it should be on.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingRecords did not always show when medicines were refused or whether they were offered again. Some information about the effectiveness of as-required medicines was also missing.
“Records for medicines refused had not always been completed and did not state whether it had been offered later.” from the report
Staff cover at busy times
needs fixingStaff deployment at supper time sometimes left lounge areas without staff while other people were being helped. The management team was considering extra staff and supper assistants.
“During the inspection staff deployment at supper time meant that the lounge areas were sometimes left unattended by staff whilst they assisted other people in their rooms.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to checking pressure-relieving mattresses, and how are the checks recorded?
- 02How do you record refused medicines and whether they are offered again?
- 03How do you record whether as-required medicines have worked?
- 04What staffing arrangements are now in place at supper time and during breakfast?
- 05What actions from the post-inspection plan have been completed, and how do you check that they remain effective?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection that looked at the premises, care and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 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 Westerleigh Nursing Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.