CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westside Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and there were enough staff. Some risk assessments, care plans, special diet records and medicine stock checks were not sufficiently detailed or accurate.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this report. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a positive, person-centred culture, but its audits had not identified problems with some care records, special diet information and medicine stock records.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Westside Care Home was rated Good overall, with safe care but improvements needed in management checks and records.
The inspection was unannounced. One inspector and one Expert by Experience visited on 11 January 2023. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable infection control and systems to protect people from abuse. People received their medicines as prescribed, although some medicine stock checks were incomplete or inaccurate.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Managers had quality checks, but these had not found some gaps in risk assessments, care plans, special diet information and medicine records. The provider updated records and introduced new audit processes during or after the inspection.
The overall rating stayed Good because the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. The last overall rating was also Good, published on 28 October 2017.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were carried out, and the home generally used a stable staff team.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs and staff recruitment followed safer recruitment practice.” from the report
Protection from abuse
Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe.
“There were systems and processes in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements to prevent and manage infections, including using protective equipment safely.
“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report
Kind and positive culture
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the home. Inspectors found its culture was person-centred, open and inclusive.
“There was a positive culture that was person-centred, open, inclusive and empowering.” from the report
Working with others
Staff worked with health, local authority and other organisations to meet people's needs and support activities.
“Staff worked effectively in partnership with other professionals, agencies and organisations to meet people's needs.” from the report
Care plans needed more detail
needs fixingSome records did not give staff enough specific or up-to-date information about diabetes, epilepsy, pressure sores, falls and special diets. The manager updated the records during the inspection and evidence of further updates was sent afterwards.
“some people's risks assessments and care plans could have been more robust if they had more specific and detailed information in some areas.” from the report
Medicine stock checks
needs fixingMedicine stock counts were not always recorded or accurate. This made it harder for the home to check whether medicines had been received, although inspectors found no evidence of harm and people had received medicines as prescribed.
“The stock count of medicines had not always been recorded and was not always accurate” from the report
Management audits
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified the record-keeping and medicine-checking problems found by inspectors. New systems were introduced, but CQC said it would monitor whether they became consistent and effective.
“However, not all the audits were always effective.” from the report
- 01How often are medicine stock counts now completed, and who checks that the records are accurate?
- 02How do you make sure care plans contain detailed information about diabetes, epilepsy, pressure sores, falls and special diets?
- 03What changes have been made to the audit system since the inspection, and what evidence shows that the changes are working?
- 04Can visits now take place whenever families want and in any part of the home?
- 05Which key questions were not inspected this time, and what were their previous ratings?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 February 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some record-keeping follow-up that needed to be clearer.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 28 September 2017. One inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, staff files, training records and audits.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were friendly, patient and caring. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines practice and regular reviews of risks and care plans.
People received support with food, health needs, activities and personal choices. Staff respected privacy and dignity. Relatives were made welcome, and the home had a homely atmosphere.
The overall Good rating remained unchanged from the previous inspection. Inspectors found some actions from staff meetings and supervision were not clearly recorded, although the management team said they would improve this.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe in the home. Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks were reviewed regularly.
“People using the service told us they felt safe living in the home.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff protect people's dignity, offer choices and provide care in a friendly manner. Relatives were made to feel welcome.
“We saw staff caring for people in a way that promoted their dignity in a respectful manner.” from the report
Good health and medicines support
Medicines were given on time by trained nurses. The home also involved GPs and other health professionals when people needed extra support.
“People received their medicines on time from trained staff.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and goals. The home offered activities, outings and social events.
“Each person had an engagement/social care plan which was completed by the activities coordinator” from the report
Approachable management
People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable. The home sought feedback through meetings, surveys and other activities.
“The feedback we received from people, their relatives and staff was that the management and the general staff were approachable” from the report
Follow-up was not always recorded
needs fixingSuggestions made in staff meetings and requests for training were not always followed by clear written evidence of what had been done. The manager and director said they would address this.
“suggestions made in staff meetings but the action taken in response was not always clearly recorded.” from the report
New manager applying to register
minorThe manager had only been in post for a few months and was applying to become registered at the time of inspection. Families may want to check the current position.
“There was a manager at the service who had only been in post for a few months and who was in the process of applying to become registered.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now become registered with the CQC, and who is currently responsible for running the home?
- 02How do you record and check that suggestions raised in staff meetings are acted on?
- 03How are staff training requests recorded and followed up after supervision?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed?
- 05What activities, outings and religious or cultural support are currently available?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with ratings given for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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 Westside Care Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.