CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding effective care and strong safety, kindness, personalisation and leadership.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 21 March 2019. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, staff and managers. They observed care, checked medicines and reviewed care, staffing, training and quality records.
The home supported up to 12 people with learning disabilities, specialising in autism. Nine people lived there during the inspection. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices and keep their independence.
The Effective rating was Outstanding. Inspectors highlighted personalised training, excellent links with health services, strong support with food and drink, and staff understanding of people's individual needs. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good.
The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection in 2016. Effective improved from Good to Outstanding. The report says legal requirements were met.
Personalised risk support
Risks were assessed in detail while people were supported to keep as much freedom as possible. People were involved in decisions about how risks should be managed.
“Risks to people who used the service were assessed and their safety was monitored and managed, with minimal restrictions on their freedom.” from the report
Individual staff training
Training was developed around the needs of the people living in the home, including complex needs relating to learning disabilities and autism.
“We saw that staff training was developed and delivered around individual needs.” from the report
Health care links
The home worked closely with health and social care professionals. People had regular access to services such as GPs, mental health nurses, dieticians and speech and language therapists.
“We saw that the service worked extremely well with other professionals and organisations who were also involved in providing people with care and support.” from the report
Choice and nutrition
People helped plan and prepare meals, chose from different food options and were supported to eat and drink safely. They could also grow vegetables in the garden.
“People who used the service told us that they created their own meal plans and helped prepare their own meals.” from the report
Involvement in recruitment
People living in the home helped choose new staff and volunteers. Their views had a strong influence on recruitment decisions.
“People who used the service were actively involved in the recruitment of staff and volunteers and had a strong an influence on the outcome.” from the report
Person-centred care plans
Care plans described people's needs, strengths and aspirations. They included guidance on supporting independence and maintaining quality of life.
“Care plans were personalised and described the holistic care and support each person required, together with details of their strengths and aspirations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative's care plan, including their communication needs, strengths, aspirations and preferred routines?
- 02What training would the staff supporting my relative receive about their specific learning disability, autism and any complex health or behavioural needs?
- 03How would my relative be involved in decisions about risks, medicines, treatment and everyday activities?
- 04How would you involve our family and other professionals in care reviews and health appointments?
- 05If my relative wanted to become more independent or move on, what support would the home provide during and after that transition?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of all five key questions, and CQC looked at both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some support plans still needing further development.
The inspection was announced and took place on 1 September 2016. One inspector visited, reviewed records and spoke with the manager, three care staff and two relatives. The inspectors also observed care and contacted a healthcare professional.
The home was caring for two people at the time, although it was registered for up to 12 people with a learning disability. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines arrangements and staff who were trained and supported.
Inspectors found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care reflected people's choices, communication needs, routines and interests. Relatives spoke positively about the care and the management.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The report says the home had quality checks and made improvements when issues were identified.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent before giving medicines. Medicines were administered by two staff and checked through monthly audits.
“All medicines were administered by two members of staff, one who administered and one who witnessed the administration.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They used calm, supportive communication and understood people's individual ways of expressing themselves.
“Staff understood each person's choices and preferences, and knew how to communicate with people effectively.” from the report
Good health support
Staff responded to changes in people's health and helped them attend routine and other healthcare appointments.
“They pick up on any medical concerns and seek medical advice. They don't take risks with people's health.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans recorded people's preferences, routines, choices and communication needs. People were supported to take part in activities and make decisions.
“The support plans we read were personal to the individual and gave information to staff about people's needs and how they made choices.” from the report
Strong management oversight
Staff said managers were approachable and available for advice. The home used audits and checks to monitor safety and care quality.
“There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on going improvements.” from the report
Support plans still developing
needs fixingThe manager had identified that some support plans needed more detail, especially where people might show behaviours that challenged themselves or others. Work had started, but the report records this as an area still being developed.
“The registered manager had recognised that the support plans needed further development where people may have displayed behaviours that challenged themselves and others.” from the report
- 01How were the support plans that needed further development completed after this inspection?
- 02How do you record and review support for behaviours that may challenge the person or others?
- 03How many people are living at the home now, and how will staffing levels change as more people move in?
- 04How are people's non-verbal communication methods recorded and shared with new staff?
- 05How will relatives be involved in reviewing their family member's care and support plan?
This was an announced inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; two people were living at the home at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 September 2016 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
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: OutstandingCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.