CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westwolds
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Two showers could potentially reach scalding temperatures, and some radiators could burn people if they fell against them. Inspectors also found staffing, risk assessment, medicines recording and cleaning shortfalls.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support that met their needs. Staff had suitable training, people were supported with food, drink and healthcare, and the home worked within mental capacity safeguards.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Inspectors saw positive relationships, respect for privacy and dignity, and support for people's independence and choices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and generally comprehensive. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships, complaints and end of life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had supportive leadership, regular feedback and quality checks. However, its audits had not identified all the safety problems found during the inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Westwolds rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but safety arrangements required improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 February 2020. Two inspectors spoke with people and staff, observed care, and checked training, records and quality checks.
The home was generally clean and well maintained. People received kind and respectful care, had choices, enjoyed activities and food, and were supported to keep in touch with relatives.
The Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Inspectors found possible scalding and burning risks, fewer night staff than the home's assessment required, gaps in medicines records and some out-of-date risk information.
The overall rating stayed Good. The other four areas were rated Good. The provider said it had taken immediate action on the issues found.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff respected privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people's personal care, health, nutrition and activities. Staff understood people's changing needs and preferences.
“Care plans were personalised. They were generally comprehensive and covered areas such as personal care, health action plans, nutritional needs and activities.” from the report
Good prevention and training
Staff had the training needed for their roles. Extra work on preventing pressure wounds meant no one had one at the inspection.
“This early intervention approach meant that no one living at the care home had pressure wounds at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People were supported to take part in activities and maintain contact with relatives. Different ways of communicating were available.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their relatives.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff described the management as approachable and supportive. The provider asked people, relatives and staff for feedback and used it to make improvements.
“The registered manager provided supportive leadership. Care workers told us the registered manager, and deputy manager, were approachable and they felt supported by them.” from the report
Scald and burn risks
seriousTwo showers could become hot enough to scald people. Some radiators could cause burns if someone fell against them. The provider said it had taken immediate action.
“Hot water from two showers could potentially reach temperatures which could scald people; and some radiators, in communal corridors, had surface temperatures likely to cause people to be burned if they accidentally fell against them.” from the report
Night staffing
seriousThere had not always been enough night staff to match the home's own assessment of people's needs. The manager immediately increased the night staffing level.
“There had not always been enough night staff to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingControlled drugs were not recorded in a suitable book. Records also did not always show that prescribed skin creams had been given.
“The use of prescribed skin cream medicine was not always recorded appropriately.” from the report
Risk and incident records
needs fixingOne person's risk assessment had not been updated after a fall. Reviews of incidents did not always record the actions taken or identify wider themes.
“Opportunities to learn from incidents were sometimes missed.” from the report
Safety checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits were generally effective but had not found the safety issues identified by inspectors.
“Although the process was generally effective, the provider's audits had not identified the safety issues we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01Have the thermostatic temperature valves been fitted to both showers, and have the additional radiator covers been installed?
- 02How many staff are now deployed at night, and how is this checked against residents' assessed needs?
- 03How are controlled drugs and prescribed skin creams recorded now?
- 04How are falls and other incidents reviewed, and how do you record actions and look for repeated patterns?
- 05What checks are now used to make sure environmental safety problems are found before an inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering the home and all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good, published on 12 July 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 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, July 2017
Westwolds was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but some records needed more detail.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 June 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people using the service, visitors, staff, the manager and a healthcare professional, and checked care, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated well. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, support with food and healthcare, and respectful care.
Inspectors found that care plans and daily notes did not always explain people's needs and preferences in enough detail. Some informal concerns did not have a record showing what action had been taken. The manager said these points would be improved.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood risks and safeguarding responsibilities.
“People were supported by staff who understood the risks they could face and knew how to keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had positive relationships with people and respected their privacy, dignity, choices and individuality.
“People were cared for and supported by staff who respected them as individuals.” from the report
Food and activities
People received food and drink suited to their needs and preferences. They could join activities and follow their own interests.
“People received individualised care and they were able to participate in meaningful interaction and activities.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff found the management approachable. The home used audits, surveys and a suggestion box to seek views and identify improvements.
“People who used the service told us the registered manager was approachable and proactive.” from the report
Care records lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans gave basic information but did not always explain how people preferred their care to be provided. Daily notes were also brief.
“People received care that met their needs, although records made about how this should be done could be more detailed.” from the report
Follow-up of concerns was not always recorded
needs fixingThe home kept a record of informal complaints and concerns, but it did not always show what action had been taken.
“However there was not always a record made to show what had been done about these.” from the report
One dignity incident
needs fixingInspectors saw one incident in which a person's dignity was compromised by a staff member. The manager responded immediately and followed up with the staff member.
“At one stage during our visit we witnessed an incident where a person had their dignity compromised by a member of staff.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the detail in care plans and daily notes since this inspection?
- 02How do you record people's care preferences and show that these have been followed?
- 03How are informal complaints and concerns recorded, investigated and followed up?
- 04What action was taken after the dignity incident described in the report, and how do you prevent similar incidents?
- 05How do you make capacity assessments and best-interest decisions specific to each person?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 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 Westwolds
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 June 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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 £1,260 a week. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.