CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westminster House Residential Care Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks involving safety, medicines, safeguarding and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection carried out over four visits in May and June 2023. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found poor risk assessments, unsafe moving and handling, unsafe medicines practices, delays in reporting safeguarding concerns, unsuitable staffing arrangements and weaknesses in recruitment. They also found poor food storage and said lessons were not learned when things went wrong.
The service was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and Well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were not assessed during this focused inspection. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2019.
Healthcare support
The home worked with other organisations and people could access healthcare when needed. Relatives said they were kept informed about healthcare appointments and needs.
“The service worked with other organisations to ensure they delivered joined-up care and support.” from the report
Meals
People had food and drink available throughout the day, and inspectors said meals were well presented. People spoke positively about the food.
“People's comments about the food provided were positive. Comments included, "Yes, I like the food" and, "The meals are always lovely.” from the report
Relatives' views
Relatives told inspectors they were happy with the care and support their family members received. Most relatives also said there were usually enough staff when they visited.
“Relatives confirmed they were happy with the care and support provided for their family member.” from the report
Fire safety
Fire detection, warning systems and firefighting equipment were in place and checked. Hot water was also tested and a legionella analysis found no bacteria.
“Appropriate fire detection, warning systems and firefighting equipment were in place and checked to ensure they remained effective.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousMedicines records were confusing and there were no proper instructions for some medicines given when needed. Inspectors also saw staff handling medicines with their fingers and found that sedative medicines were used without evidence of other support being tried first.
“The provider failed to ensure the proper and safe use of medicines at the service.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousSafeguarding concerns were not reported or investigated promptly. Inspectors said this left people at significant risk of harm or abuse.
“Robust arrangements were not in place to safeguard people from abuse.” from the report
Unsafe care practices
seriousStaff used unsafe moving and handling techniques, including placing a hand under a person's arm and using a transfer belt without an assessment. Hazardous chemicals were also left accessible after inspectors raised the issue.
“Staff were observed on 3 separate occasions to place their hand under a person's underarm when assisting them to mobilise.” from the report
Staffing and training
needs fixingStaffing was not always suitable for people's needs, recruitment checks were incomplete and new staff did not receive a robust induction. Training was not consistently reflected in everyday practice.
“Robust arrangements were not in place to ensure staff had the skills to deliver effective care and support and received an appropriate induction.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits were not completed as planned and complaints, incidents and safeguarding concerns were not used to identify lessons. There was no effective written improvement plan being understood and used by management.
“Effective arrangements were not in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided, to ensure compliance with regulations.” from the report
Fluid monitoring
needs fixingPeople's fluid targets were not always met. Records did not show how this risk was monitored or addressed to prevent dehydration.
“Fluid intake records viewed showed people's fluid targets were not always met.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines records, PRN medicine instructions and the use of sedative medicines?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns now reported, investigated and shared with the Local Authority and CQC?
- 03How do you decide staffing levels and ensure staff are safely deployed when people may fall or become distressed?
- 04Have all staff completed a robust induction and the required training for dementia, mental health, moving and handling, and medicines?
- 05What evidence can you show that audits, complaints and incidents are now being reviewed through the service improvement plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only, prompted partly by safeguarding concerns; Caring and Responsive were not assessed and their ratings were not given. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 2023 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 Residential Care Limited is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with more detailed audit action plans needed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 10 July 2019. Two inspectors spoke with five people, one relative, the manager and two care workers. They observed care and reviewed care files, medicines records, training information, meeting minutes, audits and a staff file. They also sought views from healthcare professionals and the local council.
The home was providing personal care without nursing for up to 12 people, and all 12 places were in use during the inspection. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported by suitable staff and given medicines safely. Care was planned around people's needs, choices and independence.
People were treated kindly and with dignity. They were supported with food, healthcare, activities, family contact and end-of-life planning. The home was rated Good in all five areas, which means inspectors judged the service to be consistently meeting the relevant standards at that inspection.
Safe staffing
The home had a consistent staff team, and inspectors saw that staff had time to spend with people without rushing. Staffing levels were adjusted according to people's needs.
“We noted staff on duty had time to spend with people without being rushed and staff also supported people to go out on community trips.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's histories, interests, likes, dislikes and preferred ways of receiving support. People, relatives and advocates were involved in reviews.
“Care plans were person centred and included information on people's background, hobbies and interests, likes and dislikes and preferences on how they wished to receive their care and support.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. Staff respected privacy, knocked before entering rooms and supported people to remain independent.
“Staff respected people's privacy and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to follow their interests, see family and friends, go on trips and go out independently where appropriate.
“Staff supported people to have trips out to places that interested them.” from the report
Health and medicines
The home monitored people's health and nutrition, made referrals when needed and had systems for receiving, storing, giving and disposing of medicines safely.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Audit action plans
minorThe home completed regular quality audits, but inspectors said the resulting action plans were not detailed enough. Families may want to ask what has been improved since the inspection.
“Regular audits were completed on all aspects of the service, however the action plans needed to be more detailed.” from the report
- 01How have you made the audit action plans more detailed since the inspection?
- 02Has the planned replacement of flooring and radiator covers been completed?
- 03How do you adjust staffing levels when people's dependency needs change?
- 04How are medicines reviewed with people's GPs or hospital consultants?
- 05How will you support my relative's interests, trips out and independence?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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 Residential Care Limited
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Inadequate.
- July 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Westminster House Residential Care Limited →
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Westminster House Residential Care Limited →
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.