CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Westwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using safe infection prevention and control procedures. They found suitable arrangements for visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
- 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The CQC visited on 12 August 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found clear arrangements for visitor screening, hygiene and family visits. They also found safe procedures for new admissions, effective use of protective equipment, regular cleaning and infection control checks.
The home had provided staff training on COVID-19, infection control and protective equipment. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, testing, social distancing and possible outbreaks.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or assess all areas of care.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened and supported to follow hygiene procedures before entering. The home also had a clear process for arranging family visits.
“There was protocol in place to ensure that all visitors were supported to complete the screening process and adhere to safe hygiene procedures before entering.” from the report
Safe admissions
The home had a COVID-19 admissions flow chart to guide new admissions in line with current guidance.
“The service has devised a Covid-19 admissions flow-chart to ensure all new admissions are completed following current best practice guidelines.” from the report
Protective equipment and training
Staff were observed using protective equipment correctly and had received training on COVID-19, infection control and its use.
“All staff received appropriate training on Covid-19, infection control and the use of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home very clean and well maintained. Cleaning had increased, with regular audits and checks.
“The home environment was extremely clean and well maintained. Cleaning staff followed an increased cleaning schedule.” from the report
Managing health risks
The home considered risks linked to people's health conditions and ethnicity, and was carrying out whole-service testing in line with government advice.
“The service had considered the risks associated with health conditions and ethnicity for people receiving care and staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened and supported to follow hygiene procedures?
- 02How are new admissions assessed and managed for infection risks?
- 03What training do staff currently receive on infection control and protective equipment?
- 04How often are cleaning, infection control and outbreak management checks carried out?
- 05How are family visits arranged if there is an infection risk or outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the service overall or assess the other key questions in detail. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 September 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 and personalised care, with staff supervision needing improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 17 and 18 December 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care, including mealtimes, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from avoidable harm, received their medicines safely, and had enough trained staff overall. Care was described as kind, respectful and tailored to people's needs.
The home was still rated Good, as it was at the previous inspection in May 2016. Inspectors found no serious risks or concerns. However, significant numbers of staff had not received supervision for more than three months or a yearly appraisal, and managers said they would improve this.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff build warm, positive relationships with people. Staff understood people's preferences and knew how to provide comfort when someone was distressed.
“Staff consistently demonstrated warmth, respect and empathy in their interactions with people they supported at the care home.” from the report
Safe medicines and environment
The home had safety checks, infection control arrangements and medicines systems in place. Inspectors found no gaps or omissions in the medicines records they checked.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely and these were managed in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, choices, interests and communication preferences. People were supported to make daily choices and retain independence.
“People received person centred care and support that was tailored to their individual needs and wishes.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities and hobbies, including trips and visits from community groups. The home had dedicated staff resources for activities.
“The service had built up strong links with the wider community.” from the report
Open management and monitoring
People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback. Managers used audits and reviews of incidents to identify improvements.
“There was clear oversight and scrutiny of the service.” from the report
Staff supervision was not regular enough
needs fixingSignificant numbers of staff had not had a formal supervision meeting for over three months or an annual appraisal within the previous year. Managers accepted the shortfall and planned to improve it.
“However, contrary to recognised best practice and the provider's own staff supervision and appraisal policies and procedures, we found significant numbers of staff had not had a formal supervision meeting with their line manager for over three months or had their overall work performance appraised within the last 12 months.” from the report
Some concern about staffing levels
minorMost people felt there were enough staff, but one person said staffing was not always adequate. Another person said response times depended on how busy staff were.
“We received one negative comment about the care home not always being adequately staffed, but overall the feedback was positive about staffing levels.” from the report
- 01How have you made sure staff now receive supervision at least as regularly as required?
- 02When was the last appraisal or supervision meeting for the staff who would care for my relative?
- 03How do you check that there are enough staff on duty when the home is particularly busy?
- 04What activities would be available for my relative, based on their interests and communication needs?
- 05How would you record and respond if my relative's care needs or preferences changed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the previous Good ratings reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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 Westwood House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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 Lewisham
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 82 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”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.