CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westwood Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Fire drills and trained fire wardens were not sufficient, some bedroom doors were propped open, and there were hazards involving call bells, staircases and unsecured wardrobes. Medicines were generally managed safely, but storage temperatures and records were not always complete.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff had induction and support, but training was not frequent enough and did not cover some people's individual needs. Information about dietary needs was sometimes inconsistent, although healthcare support and people's choice and control were positive.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected as part of this report, so no new rating was given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected as part of this report, so no new rating was given.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits and checks had not identified several problems found by inspectors. The registered manager and staff were described as approachable, open and supportive, with a positive culture in the home.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but important safety, training and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited on 10 and 11 January 2024, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, safety records and the building.
People and relatives generally said the care was kind and that people felt safe. Staff numbers and recruitment were viewed positively. Inspectors also found good support with healthcare, people's choices and safeguarding.
However, fire safety checks and drills were not reliable. There were environmental hazards, gaps in infection control checks, inconsistent information about dietary needs, and problems with medicine storage and records. Staff training did not cover some people's specific needs, including end-of-life care, falls and choking.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, as do Safe, Effective and Well-led. The home was last rated Requires Improvement in 2019, so it has had this rating for two consecutive inspections. The provider must send an action plan, and CQC will monitor progress.
Kind, respectful care
People described the care positively. Inspectors observed a calm atmosphere and kind interactions, and staff supported people's choices.
“We observed kind and caring interactions, indicative of a good culture.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and saw safe recruitment processes, including references and background checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and sought medical advice when people's health changed. Weekly medical ward rounds helped monitor people's health.
“Ward rounds were conducted by medical professionals weekly.” from the report
Choice and involvement
People were involved in decisions about their care, and relatives and staff had regular opportunities to give feedback.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Fire and environmental safety
seriousThere were not enough trained fire wardens, drills were inconsistent and some bedroom doors were propped open. Other hazards included missing emergency pull cords, unsafe staircases and unsecured wardrobes.
“Fire safety concerns placed people at risk of avoidable harm.” from the report
Training did not match people's needs
seriousStaff lacked training in areas needed by people living at the home, including end-of-life care, falls and choking. Learning disability and autism training had not been offered at the time of inspection.
“There was a failure to ensure staff had the qualifications and skills to provide safe care and treatment.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits and safety checks had not identified important concerns found during the inspection. This included missed fire checks, environmental hazards and inconsistent care records.
“Quality assurance processes were in place but had not identified shortfalls found during this inspection.” from the report
Medicine records and storage
needs fixingSome storage temperature checks were missing, and three liquid medicines had not been dated when opened. Records for medicines given when needed were not always clear.
“We recommend the provider reviews systems for storing medication and improves records relating to 'when required' medicines.” from the report
Diet and kitchen information
needs fixingSome care records gave inconsistent or incorrect information about dietary needs. Kitchen staff covering shifts did not always have key information about food, fluids, conditions or allergies.
“Information relating to people's dietary needs was not always consistent or correct.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to provide enough trained fire wardens and complete fire drills consistently?
- 02Have the missing emergency pull cords, stair safety measures and unsecured wardrobes now been fixed?
- 03What training have staff completed for choking, falls, end-of-life care and learning disability and autism?
- 04How are medicine storage temperatures, opening dates and records for medicines given when needed now checked?
- 05How are dietary needs, allergies and food and fluid information kept accurate and available to kitchen staff?
This inspection examined Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and no new ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 March 2024 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, September 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were keeping people safe.
Inspectors visited the home on 20 August 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. It focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found good practice around visitors, including booked visits, symptom checks, handwashing, personal protective equipment and social distancing. They were also assured that the home was managing admissions, shielding, hygiene and the use of protective equipment safely.
The home supported people to keep in touch with relatives and friends through video calls, garden and door visits, and more telephone calls. The inspection was not rated, so it does not give an overall Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Visitor safety
Visits were booked and visitors were checked for symptoms, asked to wash their hands, wear protective equipment and keep their distance.
“Visitors were monitored for Covid 19 symptoms on arrival and were required to wash their hands on entry to the home.” from the report
Support for staff travel
The provider helped staff who normally used public transport to travel by taxi, to reduce the risk of bringing infection into the home.
“Staff who would normally be reliant on public transport to get to and from the home, were supported by the provider to travel by taxi” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home used several ways to help people stay in touch with relatives and friends and reduce social isolation.
“People were supported to maintain contact with their friends and relatives through video calls, garden and door visits and increased phone calls.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection?
- 02How are visitors currently checked for symptoms, and what protective equipment or social distancing rules apply?
- 03How do you manage new admissions safely and protect people who may need shielding?
- 04How can residents keep in touch with family if face-to-face visits are limited?
- 05How do you make sure staff can travel safely without increasing infection risks?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 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.
Every inspection of Westwood Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- March 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Westwood Residential Care Home →
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Westwood Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.