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, July 2019
Westfield House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 June 2019. The inspector observed care, spoke with four people and four staff, and checked five care records and management records.
People said they felt safe and received good care. Inspectors found enough staff, thorough risk assessments, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and suitable safeguarding arrangements.
Care was tailored to people's needs. People were involved in care planning, supported to make choices, helped to maintain their health and encouraged to develop independence.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection, published in January 2017.
Staff availability
People said staff were available when needed. Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's care needs.
“There's always someone around, that's never a problem.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs and preferences. People were involved in planning their care and felt they had control over it.
“People were involved in planning their care, and people we spoke with told us they understood their care plans and felt they had control over them.” from the report
Choice at mealtimes
People were offered food choices and mealtimes followed their preferences without being rushed.
“Mealtimes were unhurried and clearly dictated by people's choices and preferences.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Staff were observed treating people warmly and respectfully. People's privacy and independence were supported.
“Staff we observed treated people with dignity and respect throughout the inspection.” from the report
Approachable management
Managers were visible and accessible. Staff described the management culture as supportive, open and respectful.
“Managers had created a culture which was open, collaborative and respectful.” from the report
Activities and independence
People helped choose activities, trips and holidays. The home had transport to support social opportunities.
“People went on holidays of their choice and trips out several times a year.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments are reviewed when their needs change?
- 02How would you support my relative to take medicines independently, if that is suitable for them?
- 03How are my relative's food preferences and nutritional needs recorded and reviewed?
- 04What activities, trips and opportunities for independence would be available for my relative?
- 05How would my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how would you keep us informed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care, premises and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 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, January 2017
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with minor improvements needed to medicines and complaints records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 December 2016. Inspectors spoke with seven people using the service, one relative, staff, managers and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and quality checks.
The inspectors found people were protected from harm, had enough staff and received care from trained staff. People had support with food, drink, healthcare, medicines and decisions about their care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and understanding of people's individual needs.
Care plans were regularly reviewed and reflected people's choices. Activities were available, and complaints were investigated, although records of some issues were incomplete. The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was an improvement from the previous inspection in July 2015, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breaches of regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect and maintaining their dignity.
“People we spoke with told us the staff were patient, kind and helped them when required.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's needs, preferences and signs that their mental health might be changing. Care plans recorded people's choices and wishes.
“Staff ensured the care they provided was personalised and individualised.” from the report
Improved safety
Risks and infection control had been better managed since the previous inspection. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff knew how to respond to possible abuse.
“At this inspection we found risks had been identified and measures were in place to manage risk to ensure peoples safety.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could choose what and when to eat, access food and drinks, and take part in activities. Staff supported people to attend events in the community.
“There was a range of activities on offer at the home. These were enjoyed by people who used the service.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team carried out regular checks on areas including the environment, infection control, fire safety, medicines and care plans.
“We found there were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Guidance for medicines given when needed
needs fixingProtocols for some medicines given when needed did not explain clearly enough what each medicine was for or which signs and symptoms should lead to its use.
“the protocols in place that gave details of the PRN medication did not give sufficient detail to determine what the medication was prescribed for” from the report
Incomplete complaints records
minorThe manager explained how concerns were dealt with, but did not keep records of every issue raised. The manager said record keeping would be improved.
“We check records of concerns and saw the general manager did not keep records of all issues raised, although they were able to explain how they would deal with any issues” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to the medicines room thermometer and how are temperatures now recorded?
- 02How do you make sure guidance for medicines given when needed explains the reason for use and the signs to look for?
- 03How are all complaints, concerns and compliments recorded and reviewed?
- 04How do you maintain staffing levels when sickness occurs at short notice?
- 05How are people's care plans reviewed when their mental health or other needs change?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including observations, discussions and checks of care, medicines, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 January 2012.
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
97 live-in carers within about an hour of Rotherham
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.