- Care home
Westside Nursing Home
We served 2 warning notices on The Derby Care Home Limited on 24 July 2026 for failing to meet the regulations related to safe care and treatment and good governance at Westside Nursing Home.
Assessment report published 4 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 16 June 2026 to 7 July 2026.
The service is a nursing home providing personal care and support for older and younger adults. At the time of the assessment the service supported 22 people.
The last full ratings assessment of Westside Nursing Home was published 26 March 2022; the overall rating was Requires Improvement. At this assessment the overall rating for Westside Nursing Home has remained Requires Improvement. This is based upon the findings at this assessment.
We carried out this assessment to follow up on breaches of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance) identified at our previous assessment. A warning notice had been issued in relation to the breach of Regulation 12, and this assessment was undertaken to review the actions taken and whether sufficient improvements had been made.
At this assessment, we found the provider remained in breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) and Regulation 17 (Good governance), as sufficient improvements had not been made to address the concerns identified at the previous assessment.
While the provider remained in breach of Regulations 12 (Safe care and treatment) and 17 (Good governance), this assessment also identified additional breaches of Regulation 9 (Person-centred care), Regulation 11 (Need for consent) and Regulation 18 (Staffing).
Systems to identify, assess and manage risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were not always effective. Care plans and risk assessments did not consistently provide staff with sufficient guidance to safely support people, environmental risks had not always been identified or mitigated, and arrangements to manage infection prevention and control and medicines were not always safe. Although some action was taken during the assessment to address immediate concerns, people were not always protected from the risk of avoidable harm. These issues demonstrated that risks were not always assessed, mitigated or monitored effectively and resulted in a breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment).
The provider did not always ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably skilled, qualified and competent staff to meet people’s needs. People told us there were times when staffing levels were not sufficient and some people reported difficulties understanding staff. Training, supervision and competency arrangements were inconsistent, with gaps identified in mandatory training, clinical supervision for nursing staff and medicines competency assessments. These issues demonstrated that systems to determine and review staffing were not sufficiently robust and resulted in a breach of Regulation 18 (Staffing).
People’s rights were not always fully protected in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Whilst mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) processes were generally in place, we identified concerns regarding decision-making relating to people sharing bedrooms. This meant there was not always clear evidence that decisions affecting people had been made lawfully and in their best interests and resulted in a breach of Regulation 11 (Need for consent).
Care was not always planned and delivered in a fully person-centred way. Care records lacked sufficient information about some people’s preferences, life histories and what was important to them. People were not consistently involved in reviewing their care and support, and opportunities to promote meaningful occupation, social engagement and independence were limited. This resulted in a breach of Regulation 9 (Person-centred care).
Governance systems were not effective in identifying, monitoring and addressing the concerns found during this assessment. Although audits, checks and monitoring processes were in place, these had failed to identify issues relating to environmental safety, infection prevention and control, medicines management, staff training and supervision, activities provision, mental capacity processes and care documentation. This meant leaders did not always have effective oversight of the quality and safety of care being delivered. This meant risks were not always recognised or acted upon in a timely way, placing people at ongoing risk of harm, and resulted in a breach of Regulation 17 (Good governance).
Despite these concerns, people, relatives, staff and professionals described positive relationships with the registered manager and told us staff were generally kind, caring and responsive. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals and there were examples of effective partnership working to support people’s health and wellbeing. Relatives were largely positive about the care provided and professionals described communication from the service as good. However, sustained improvements are required to ensure governance systems are effective and that people consistently receive safe, effective, person-centred care.
People's experience of this service
People gave mixed feedback about their experiences of care at Westside Nursing Home. Many people and relatives described staff as kind, caring and supportive, and relatives spoke positively about the personal care people received. People generally told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives did not raise safeguarding concerns. However, some people told us there were occasions when they felt staffing levels were insufficient and some people said they could not always understand staff. We also found people did not always know how to call for assistance, with some unsure where call bells were located.
People’s choices and experiences were not always promoted consistently. Most people told us they were able to choose when to get up and go to bed, however one person felt their daily routine was influenced by staff availability rather than personal choice. People’s opportunities for meaningful activity and stimulation were limited, and observations showed people were often passive or disengaged during the day. In addition, there was limited evidence that people were routinely involved in reviewing their care and support.
People’s health and wellbeing needs were generally supported through access to healthcare professionals and ongoing monitoring, and relatives were positive about the quality of food provided. Staff responded promptly when people became distressed and people told us they felt able to raise concerns. However, we identified examples where people’s dignity, preferences and rights were not always fully considered. These included concerns about the arrangements for people sharing bedrooms, inconsistencies in care records, and occasions where people’s individual needs and preferences were not reflected in care planning. The overall feedback and our observations indicated that while people and relatives valued many aspects of care, improvements were needed to ensure care was consistently person-centred and responsive to people’s individual wishes.