CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westfield House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home managed infection risks, including admissions, visitors, PPE, testing, cleaning and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not rated or assessed in this inspection.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Westfield House Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were being followed.
Inspectors visited on 29 October 2020. This was an announced thematic review focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found safe arrangements for admissions and visits. The home used personal protective equipment correctly, followed social distancing guidance and carried out extra cleaning.
The report says staff had individual risk assessments and electronic handovers were used to reduce gatherings. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, but the home was not given an overall rating.
Safe admissions
The home had systems to admit people safely during the pandemic.
“Systems in place allowed for people to be admitted to the home safely.” from the report
PPE and hygiene
Inspectors found that PPE guidance was followed and that the home was very clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“National guidance was followed on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Visitor arrangements
The home had a detailed process for safer visits, including booking, screening, agreements and PPE. Video calls were used when visits were restricted.
“A detailed risk assessment was in place for ensuring safe visits by all visitors” from the report
Staff risk checks
Staff had been asked about their concerns and had individual health and other risk assessments.
“Each staff member had had a detailed risk assessment and health risk assessment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing visits, including booking, health screening and PPE?
- 02How do you test people living here and staff, and how would you manage an infection outbreak?
- 03How often are frequently touched surfaces cleaned, and how is this recorded?
- 04How do you assess and review individual staff health risks?
- 05What ratings or inspection findings are available for caring, responsiveness and leadership, which this review did not assess?
This was an announced thematic review of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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, August 2017
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because inspectors found problems with medicines storage and infection-control arrangements.
This was an unannounced inspection on 21 June 2017. It was the first inspection since the home registered with CQC. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management records.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Staff knew people's needs and preferences. Care plans were personal and regularly reviewed. People received support with food, drink, health appointments, activities and maintaining independence. Inspectors also found enough staff and safe recruitment processes.
The main weaknesses were in the Safe area. The medicines room was too warm, some medicines records had missing information, and staff were not using the correct bags for infected laundry. A toilet also had water hot enough to create a scald risk. The home was rated Good overall, but Safe was rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind and respectful. Inspectors saw friendly, person-centred interactions and support that encouraged independence.
“People said they were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and they were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, histories and support needs. Staff understood this information and used it in daily care.
“The life story work was very detailed and built up a picture of each person's history, their expectations, their life experiences, and family relationships.” from the report
Staff training and healthcare
Staff received training, supervision and appraisals. People were supported to access GPs, nurses and specialist professionals when needed.
“Staff received relevant training and supervision to enable them to feel confident in providing effective care for people.” from the report
Activities and involvement
Activities were offered every day, including support for people who preferred to stay in their rooms. People and relatives were asked for their views.
“Activities were on offer daily and these were facilitated by an activities coordinator.” from the report
Open management
The manager was described as open and approachable. Quality checks were carried out and the home responded to feedback and complaints.
“Everyone said the culture of the service was open, transparent and the manager sought ideas and suggestions on how care and practice could be improved.” from the report
Medicines room too warm
seriousThe medicines room was above the recommended temperature on several days. Inspectors could not be sure that medicines stored there remained safe for use.
“This meant we could not be assured that medicines stored in the medicines room were safe for use.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingSome medicines records had missing signatures and did not explain where creams and lotions should be applied. Inspectors found no evidence that people had missed medicines, but recording needed to improve.
“These included missing signatures on the MAR sheets and a lack of information about where to apply external creams and lotions on the topical medicine administration records.” from the report
Laundry infection control
needs fixingThe laundry walls and floor were not sealed and care staff were not using the red dissolvable bags for infected linen. This increased the risk of infection for laundry staff.
“This meant the laundry staff had to open black bin bags of dirty laundry and handle the contents, which in turn meant a higher risk of infection to these individuals.” from the report
Hot-water scald risk
seriousA wash-hand basin in one toilet had recorded temperatures above 50 degrees Celsius. The toilet was closed while the provider arranged repairs, but the work was not complete when the report was written.
“This presented a scald risk to people washing their hands and the maintenance person said they would get a valve restrictor and fit it straight away.” from the report
- 01Has the medicines room temperature problem been fixed, and how is the temperature checked now?
- 02What changes have been made to ensure all medicines records have complete signatures and clear instructions for creams and lotions?
- 03Are the laundry walls and floor now sealed and are red dissolvable bags used for infected linen every time?
- 04Has the hot-water scald risk been fixed, and is the toilet open for use?
- 05How does the home check that actions identified through medicines and infection-control audits have been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 August 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 Westfield House Care Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2017GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2015.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.