CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westfield Lodge Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risk assessments and care plans identified people's risks and staff followed them in practice. Medicines, staffing, safeguarding and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received food, drink and healthcare support suited to their needs. Staff had induction, training and supervision, and followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind and compassionate relationships. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, communication needs and choices, and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and people were supported to take part in hobbies and outings. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and complaints were investigated with written responses.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve the service. Inspectors found an open, person-centred culture and systems to meet regulatory requirements.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Westfield Lodge Care Home was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 February 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience visited the home. They spoke with eight people, four relatives and six staff. They also observed care, checked care and medicines records, and reviewed staff and management documents.
The inspectors found that people were safe. Staff managed risks and medicines properly, responded quickly to call bells and followed safeguarding and infection control procedures. People received suitable food and drink, healthcare support and care based on their needs and preferences.
People described staff as kind and respectful. They were supported to make choices, maintain relationships, enjoy activities and raise complaints. The home had systems to monitor quality, learn from incidents and involve people, relatives and staff in improvements.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was rated Good. This means the inspectors found the service met the characteristics of Good at the time of the inspection. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, so the home had improved.
Safe support
The home had improved its management of risks and medicines since the previous inspection. Staff understood people's risks and followed the guidance in their care plans.
“Risk assessments and care plans were in place to ensure people's risks had been identified and actions taken to ensure people's risk were lowered.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors observed caring interactions. People were treated with dignity and respect, while being supported to remain independent and make choices.
“There was a genuine, kind and compassionate relationship between staff and people living in the home.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences and supported their interests, activities and relationships. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“People and their relatives were involved in the planning and reviewing of their support which ensured people received support in line with their wishes.” from the report
Good oversight
The home used quality audits, feedback and incident reviews to identify improvements. Staff said they were listened to and involved in making changes.
“The registered manager monitored the service regularly. These were in the form of quality audits.” from the report
Improved mealtimes
The report says the home had addressed earlier concerns about people's experience during meals. Inspectors saw a positive mealtime experience and found that nutritional needs were monitored.
“At this inspection the required improvements had been made.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have you maintained the improvements made to medicines management since the previous inspection?
- 02How do you check that staff continue to follow each person's risk assessments and care preferences?
- 03How are people and relatives currently involved in reviewing care plans and giving feedback?
- 04How do you make sure activities and outings remain available for people with different interests and abilities?
- 05What progress has been made with the refurbishment, and how do you manage any risks to residents while work is taking place?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises and care, with observations, conversations, records and management systems reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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, October 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found clear progress, but safety, staffing and personalised care still needed work.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 September 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care, medicine and recruitment records, training and quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures. However, inspectors still found risks that had not been fully managed, delays in support, an overcrowded dining room and care that did not always match people's needs and preferences.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. This means the home was no longer judged Inadequate, but inspectors found that improvements were not yet consistent or complete. The home was removed from special measures.
Progress since the last inspection
The provider had acted on earlier concerns and introduced new systems. Inspectors found enough improvement for the home to leave special measures.
“During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions.” from the report
Protection from abuse
Staff understood how to report suspected abuse. Unexplained injuries were investigated and safeguarding referrals were made when needed.
“This meant people were being safeguarded from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Health support
People received support from health professionals when their needs changed or they became unwell.
“We saw when people's needs changed the staff sought the support of the appropriate health care agency.” from the report
Kind interactions and choice
Inspectors saw caring interactions. People were offered choices about routines, food and comfort, and their choices were respected.
“We observed that interactions between staff and people who used the service were kind, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Improved oversight
Managers used daily checks, incident reviews and quality inspections to identify problems and make changes.
“The new accident and incident forms that had been implemented had driven improvement and ensured that action was mostly taken following an incident to reduce the risk of further incidents.” from the report
Unclear risk management
seriousOne person's risk assessment was not reviewed after a call bell cord had been found around their neck. The reason for reducing checks was not recorded, leaving a potential risk of harm.
“This meant that this person was potentially at risk of harm.” from the report
Delayed support upstairs
seriousStaff were not always present upstairs after the lounge was closed. One person who was unwell had to wait for help after staff did not respond to the call bell.
“However, staff were now not always present upstairs as people were all going into the two downstairs lounges where staff support was required.” from the report
Care plans not always followed
needs fixingStaff did not always know or follow people's assessed dietary needs. One person with diabetes was offered a jam doughnut, and another person's soft-food preference was not understood by all staff.
“This meant that staff were not always aware or following people's care plans to ensure their assessed needs were being met.” from the report
Crowded mealtimes
needs fixingThe dining room was overcrowded after the upstairs lounge closed. People sometimes had to be moved while eating, making meals less pleasant and potentially unsafe.
“The environment was not conducive to a pleasant dining experience.” from the report
Dignity and respect not consistent
needs fixingAlthough many interactions were kind, some people were brought to the dining room despite not wanting to be around food. Overcrowding also affected people's dignity during meals.
“This was not demonstrate respect for these people.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure risks are reviewed promptly, including risks linked to call bells and moving equipment?
- 02How do you ensure staff are available upstairs and respond quickly to people who cannot use the call bell?
- 03How do you make sure every staff member knows each person's dietary needs, food preferences and other care plan instructions?
- 04What changes have been made to the dining arrangements since inspectors found the dining room overcrowded?
- 05How are 'when required' medicines authorised, given and recorded, and how do you check that the records are complete?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions and checking improvements after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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 Westfield Lodge Care Home
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 September 2016.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.