CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westholme Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. They were also assured about safe admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Westholme Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, after repairs were completed.
The inspection took place on 16 November 2020 and was announced. A video follow-up took place on 30 November to check that agreed changes had been made.
The inspection focused on infection prevention and control because the home was being used for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status. Inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreaks appropriately.
Inspectors found some areas that needed repair so they could be cleaned properly. The provider responded quickly, and the repairs, upgrades and deep cleans were completed in good time.
This was not a full inspection and the service was not given an overall quality rating. The Safe question was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Staff training
Staff received extra training during the pandemic, alongside their usual infection prevention and control training.
“Training had been provided for all staff from the training department in addition to the regular infection prevention and control training.” from the report
Staff checks
Spot checks helped managers see how staff were working and identify any concerns or good practice.
“Spot checks ensured that the management team were aware of staff practice and could highlight any concerns.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely and had arrangements for testing, admissions, visitors and outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Repairs needed for cleaning
minorSome areas needed repair so they could be cleaned effectively. The provider completed the repairs, upgrades and deep cleans promptly after inspectors raised this.
“We found a number of areas required repair so they could be effectively cleaned to minimise the risk of infection.” from the report
- 01How are infection prevention and control arrangements being maintained now?
- 02How often are staff practice spot checks carried out, and how are any concerns followed up?
- 03Are all areas of the building currently in good repair and able to be cleaned effectively?
- 04How are testing and safe admissions managed for people coming into the home?
- 05What arrangements are in place to prevent or manage an infection outbreak?
This was a focused inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 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, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and improvements, but initially found gaps in cream records and some care plans.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors visited on 21 and 26 November 2018, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, incidents and audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness and respect, had their care needs met, and were supported with food, medicines, activities and healthcare.
Inspectors found two issues on the first inspection day. Records did not always show that topical creams had been applied, and some care plans needed more information for staff. The registered manager took action and updated the records and care plans by the second visit.
The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection, especially around the Mental Capacity Act. Staff training and mental capacity records had been improved.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff showing compassion, respecting privacy and supporting people's dignity.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, interests and health needs. Staff knew people well and updated plans when needs changed.
“Care was planned and delivered based on people's individually assessed needs and preferences.” from the report
Good nutrition and healthcare support
People had choices of food and drink, with support for special diets and risks of malnutrition. The home worked with healthcare professionals when people needed help.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on earlier concerns about the Mental Capacity Act. Staff had received training and records showed best interest decisions and consultation.
“At this inspection we found mental capacity forms had been completed fully and so recorded the best interest decision and who had been consulted in formulating the decision.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, there were many gaps showing when creams should have been applied. The manager changed the process and added daily checks before the second visit.
“On the first day of the inspection we found the recording for administration of topical creams was inadequate as there were many gaps in the recording for when creams should have been applied.” from the report
Some care plans needed more detail
needs fixingSome plans for specific health conditions did not give staff enough information about how to meet people's needs. The plans were reviewed and updated by the second inspection day.
“On the first day of the inspection we identified that some care plans for specific health conditions could be improved by providing more information for staff on how to meet needs.” from the report
- 01How are topical cream applications recorded now, and who checks that the records are complete?
- 02How do you make sure care plans for specific health conditions give staff clear instructions?
- 03How are staffing levels reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 04How do you check that Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interest decisions remain fully recorded?
- 05How are people's individual interests used to plan activities, including for people who spend time in their rooms?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the accommodation and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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.
Every inspection of Westholme Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.