CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westfield Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. The home had detailed risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicine arrangements, although one emergency as-required medicines protocol was not initially in the correct records.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, mental health and social needs were assessed. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with food and fluids, and the home worked well with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's communication methods, preferences and signs of distress.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People were supported with activities, relationships, communication needs and future wishes, including end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Outstanding
- Inspectors found exceptionally strong leadership, a warm and inclusive culture, effective quality checks and a clear focus on learning and improving people's outcomes.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good, with Outstanding leadership; inspectors found kind, personalised care and only minor issues that were corrected.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 10 September 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and quality checks.
People were described as safe and well cared for. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicine systems, suitable training and good support with food, drinks and healthcare. Care was person-centred, respectful and adapted to people's communication, sensory and cultural needs.
The home received Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led improved from Good at the previous inspection to Outstanding. A Good rating means inspectors found the service met the regulations and provided a good standard of care at the time of this inspection.
Strong leadership
Inspectors found the home exceptionally well led. People, relatives and staff described accessible leadership and a culture that encouraged concerns and ideas to be raised.
“Everyone we spoke with told us the service was exceptionally well led.” from the report
Kind, respectful care
Staff were consistently compassionate and understood people's individual communication methods, preferences and distress signals.
“We saw lots of laughter and joking between people and staff; with people's faces lighting up when staff entered the room.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans explained in detail how people wanted to be supported. Staff used this knowledge to make people comfortable and reduce distress.
“People received well-planned and co-ordinated person-centred care.” from the report
Activities and sensory support
The home offered daily music and movement activities, an accessible garden and different sensory features. Inspectors saw people enjoying live music and familiar songs.
“A program of musical entertainment, movement and music and musical therapy was provided every day during the week.” from the report
Good hydration support
Staff monitored nutrition and hydration carefully. Snacks and drinks were available throughout the day, with hydration stations in every room and on the patio.
“Nutritional and hydration needs were carefully monitored by staff and every opportunity was used to support people to keep hydrated with 'hydration stations' in every room” from the report
Emergency medicine record
needs fixingOne protocol for an emergency as-required medicine was not initially in the medicines file or care plan. It was found and placed in the medicines administration record during the inspection.
“One 'as required' medicines protocol for an emergency medicine was not available in the medicines file and was not contained in the person's care plan.” from the report
Fire door
needs fixingOne fire door did not close during a drill. The home corrected this on the same day.
“One fire door did not close during a drill on the day of our inspection and this was rectified on the same day.” from the report
Confidential records
minorThe manager's office was not always locked when unattended and contained confidential information. This was corrected on the first day, with an improved lock fitted.
“The registered manager's office door was not always kept locked when unattended and contained some confidential information.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that every emergency as-required medicine has a current protocol in the correct records?
- 02What checks are in place to make sure all fire doors close properly and fire safety issues are fixed quickly?
- 03How are confidential records kept secure when offices are unattended?
- 04Which activities and sensory options would be available for my relative based on their interests and needs?
- 05How would you involve my family in reviewing care plans if my relative's needs changed?
This was a planned inspection of the whole care home, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 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, March 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with activities and refurbishment still being developed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, the cook, the registered manager and a health professional. They observed care and looked at care records, medicines, training and management records.
The inspectors found the home safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training, personalised care plans and good links with health professionals. People were treated with dignity and relatives said the home had improved significantly since the change in ownership and management.
The overall rating was Good, and each of the five areas was also rated Good. The home had been registered since October 2016, so there was no previous inspection under the current provider for comparison.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels supported prompt care and attention. Staff also had time to talk with people and support social activities.
“There were enough staff available to ensure people received prompt and attentive care.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained nursing staff. Inspectors found complete administration records, accurate controlled drug records and effective medicines audits.
“We concluded effective training of well recruited staff, underpinned by effective audit had resulted in the safe and effective administration of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and individual preferences. Inspectors observed friendly and respectful interactions.
“We observed care and support and saw people were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices, life histories and preferences. Relatives were involved where people could not make decisions themselves.
“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 leadership
Inspectors found the home organised and focused on improvement. Audits, staff meetings and feedback from people and relatives were used to make changes.
“We found a positive and inclusive culture within the home.” from the report
Activities were still developing
minorActivities were available, but care staff were covering them while a full-time activities co-ordinator was being recruited. Ask what activities are now offered and whether this role has been filled.
“At the time of the inspection, care staff undertook these activities with people, although a full time activities co-ordinator was in the process of being recruited.” from the report
Complaints process was not clear to everyone
minorComplaints instructions were displayed, but people and relatives could not remember whether there was a formal process. Ask to see the current complaints procedure.
“People and relatives told us they could not recall whether there was a formal complaints process to follow should they wish to make a complaint.” from the report
- 01Has the permanent activities co-ordinator been recruited, and what activities are available now?
- 02What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and what work is still planned?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in care plan reviews and important decisions?
- 04What is the current complaints procedure, and how will we be told the outcome of a complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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 Manor
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- March 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 October 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 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 understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.