CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westminster House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection control, testing, protective equipment, cleanliness, visiting arrangements and staffing for the four people living there.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not assess this question.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Westminster House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection control and safe visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 7 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected people.
The home had procedures for safe visits, including visitor screening, lateral flow tests and personal protective equipment. People and staff were regularly tested, and staff had enough protective equipment.
Inspectors found the home was clean, with extra cleaning of frequently touched surfaces. The home had single bedrooms and enough staff to meet the needs of the four people living there.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a quality rating for the home or a rated score for Safe.
Safe visiting
The home screened visitors, used lateral flow testing and provided protective equipment with guidance on using it safely.
“There were procedures in place to support safe visiting by family members or professionals.” from the report
Regular testing
People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19. Staff had lateral flow tests three times a week and PCR tests weekly.
“People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and staff recorded additional cleaning of frequently touched surfaces.
“Staff kept records of their cleaning schedules, which included a rolling programme of continuously cleaning high touch surfaces” from the report
Staff available
The manager told inspectors that staffing arrangements were sufficient for the four people living at the home. Respite care was not being provided at the time.
“The service was not providing a respite service which meant they had the necessary staff available to meet the needs of four people” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors screened and tested now, and what protective equipment is provided?
- 02How often are people and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 03How would staffing be managed if respite care restarted or people's needs increased?
- 04What arrangements would be followed if someone returned from hospital?
- 05How often are high-touch surfaces cleaned, and can families see the cleaning records?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 February 2022 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, July 2019
Westminster House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with some minor improvements needed.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people using the home, relatives, staff and an external social care professional. They observed care and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home provides short-term respite care for people with a learning disability or autism. People and relatives said they felt safe and enjoyed using the service. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, detailed care plans and care that promoted choice, dignity and independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection because a manager had been appointed and management oversight had strengthened.
Inspectors found some minor issues. Staff supervision had not been regular, some bedrooms did not feel homely, and one previous complaint response had not dealt with every issue raised. The home took immediate or planned action where inspectors raised concerns.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found safeguarding concerns had been reported and investigated appropriately.
“Records confirmed that all safeguarding concerns had been reported and investigated appropriately, in liaison with the local safeguarding team.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. The home respected privacy, dignity, rights and personal choices.
“We observed people were treated with kindness and compassion by staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication methods. Families were involved in assessments and reviews.
“Care plans were detailed, person centred and people and their families, where relevant, were involved in reviews of their care and support.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff training and competency checks were in place, including for medicines taken only when needed.
“People were supported to take their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Improved leadership
The well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. A new manager and regular senior checks gave the service stronger oversight.
“At this inspection this key question has now improved to Good.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingRecords showed that formal staff supervision had not been regular. The new manager had identified this and had a plan to provide it regularly.
“Records of staff supervision showed this had not been regularly undertaken.” from the report
Bedrooms needed improvement
minorBedrooms were described as functional but lacking a homely feeling. The management team planned new furniture and more personal choices for people's stays.
“Bedrooms were functional in appearance and lacked a homely feeling.” from the report
- 01How often do staff now receive formal supervision, and how is this checked?
- 02What changes have been made to make the bedrooms feel more homely for people staying for respite?
- 03How will you make sure complaints address the person's needs as well as relatives' concerns?
- 04How many people are usually staying at the same time, and can you meet my relative's individual support and communication needs?
- 05How are medicines, seizure support and other health instructions handed over between the home, relatives and other services?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of the care, premises and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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.
Every inspection of Westminster House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 2010.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 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.