CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westerley Residential Care Home for the Elderly - Minehead
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors checked infection prevention and control. They were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, supported visitors and residents to reduce infection risks, and could manage outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Food, healthcare and equipment met people’s needs, but some staff training and updates were overdue.
- Caring?
- Good
- Caring was not inspected as a separate key question during this focused inspection. The report says people felt well cared for and staff respected their choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people could follow their own routines. Visitors were welcomed and faith and communication needs were supported, although some people wanted more activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and monitored care closely. Audits, meetings and feedback were used to oversee the service and plan improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staff training and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 and 15 September 2022. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, visitors and care staff. They also checked care plans, meeting records, training records, audits and safety checks.
People said they felt well cared for. Staff knew people’s routines and preferences, supported personal choices and helped with healthcare, food, faith and family contact. The home also had suitable equipment and people could see visitors without restrictions.
Inspectors found that some required staff training was not up to date. Some people also felt there were not enough activities. Care information was held in both computer and paper records, which made it harder to follow care and check how well plans were working.
The overall rating stayed Good, as it was at the previous inspection published in October 2017. Safe was inspected for infection control but not given a new rating. Effective, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good.
Personal choice
People could choose their routines, meals, activities and whether to take part in religious services. Staff knew people’s preferences and followed them.
“You can go to bed when you want and get up when you want. Staff are very good.” from the report
Kind relationships
People had confidence in staff and described feeling part of the home. Visitors said they were welcomed.
“People felt included and part of a large family.” from the report
Food and health support
People were happy with the choice and quality of food, including meals prepared for specialist dietary needs. Staff worked with healthcare professionals when concerns arose.
“People were happy with the food provided and said there were always choices.” from the report
Visible management
The manager spent time with people, provided hands-on care and used audits and meetings to monitor standards.
“The registered manager was very visible in the home and spent time each day talking to people to seek their views.” from the report
Staff training
needs fixingSome required training was overdue. This included food hygiene training for some care staff and out-of-date first aid training. Inspectors recommended that the provider review the training available.
“We recommend the provider reviews the staff training available to make sure staff have the skills and confidence to effectively support people.” from the report
Activities
minorThe home was expanding its activities programme after the COVID-19 pandemic, but some people and a visitor felt there was not enough stimulation.
“However, a number of people told us they did not feel there was enough going on at the home.” from the report
Care records
minorInformation was split between computer and paper records. Inspectors said this made it harder to follow people’s care and monitor whether care plans were effective.
“This meant that assessments and daily records were separate making it difficult to follow people's care and support and monitor the effectiveness of care plans.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed the food hygiene and first aid training that was overdue?
- 02What activities and outings are currently available, and how do you check whether residents find them worthwhile?
- 03How are computer and paper care records kept consistent and checked for missing information?
- 04How will you make sure staffing levels allow genuinely person-centred care rather than being mainly task focused?
- 05How are residents and families involved in reviewing care plans and daily routines?
This was a focused inspection of Effective, Responsive and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe; Caring was not inspected and other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 September 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, although the home had recently faced staff recruitment difficulties.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 28 September 2017. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff, relatives and health professionals. They observed care and lunch, and checked care plans, medicines, staff files and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and well cared for. Inspectors found kind staff, personalised care, good support with health needs, suitable food and activities, and clear leadership.
The home had recently struggled to recruit enough staff. Inspectors said people's needs were still met safely, but one member of staff said there was less time to talk with people. The manager was recruiting and changing shifts to manage this.
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen to be kind, cheerful and considerate. People's privacy and dignity were protected, and they were encouraged to remain independent.
“Throughout the inspection staff were kind, cheerful and considerate in their interactions with people.” from the report
Personalised support
People were involved in their care and could choose how to spend their day. Care plans described their needs, preferences and the support they wanted.
“People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked well with GPs and community health professionals. People received prompt attention when unwell and support with appointments and nutrition.
“Both said staff communicated with them very well to promote people's health needs.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager knew residents well and was closely involved in the daily running of the home. Regular audits and monitoring were used to maintain standards.
“The registered manager knew people who lived in the home really well.” from the report
Compassionate end-of-life care
People were supported to remain in the home at the end of their lives where possible. Care was planned and worked out with health professionals.
“Whenever possible people were cared for until the end of their life at the home.” from the report
Recent recruitment difficulties
minorThe home had recently struggled to recruit enough staff. Inspectors said care needs were met safely, but there was less time for staff to talk with people.
“However the manager and staff told us there had recently been some staff recruitment problems and at times they had "been struggling.” from the report
- 01Have the recent staff recruitment problems been resolved, and has the planned extra morning staff member been appointed?
- 02How will you make sure staff have enough time to talk with and support my relative, as well as complete personal care?
- 03How will my relative's care plan be reviewed and changed when their needs or preferences change?
- 04How are medicines checked, and how will you tell me about any changes or problems with my relative's medicines?
- 05How will you support my relative's spiritual wishes if they do or do not want to join the daily acts of worship?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the previous inspection in October 2015 had also rated the service Good and identified no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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 Westerley Residential Care Home for the Elderly - Minehead
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Westerley Residential Care Home for the Elderly - Minehead →
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Westerley Residential Care Home for the Elderly - Minehead →
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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 12 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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.