You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

We are carrying out checks at Westhampnett Nursing Home. We will publish a report when our check is complete.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 16 October 2015

The inspection took place on 18 August 2015 and was unannounced.

The home provides care and accommodation, including nursing care, for up to 32 people and there were 24 people living at the home when we inspected. These people were all aged over 65 years who had needs associated with old age and frailty including nursing care needs.

A combination of single or double bedrooms were available for people. Shared bedrooms were only provided when two people, such as a married couple, or partners, wished to share. There was a communal lounge and dining area as well as a conservatory which people could use. The home had attractive gardens with seats and tables.

The service had a registered manager but this person was no longer working in the role. They had applied to cancel their registration with the Commission, but this had not been completed correctly. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a new manager who had been in post since July 2015 and had applied to register with the Care Quality Commission.

Adequate checks were not carried out on newly appointed staff to ensure only those staff suitable to work in care setting were employed. This included lack of reference checks from previous employers and a lack of checks that nurses were registered with the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) as ‘fit’ to practice. The manager took immediate action following the inspection by carrying out checks that all nursing staff were registered with the NMC.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or they reported any abuse. People said they felt safe at the home.

Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance of how those risks should be managed to prevent any risk of harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs although staff felt there were times when this was not the case.

People received their medicines safely but there was a lack of clarity regarding one person’s medicine which was prescribed to be taken on an ‘as required’ basis.

People told us they were supported by staff who knew their needs and preferences. Staff had access to a range of relevant training courses and said they were supported in their work.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were not fully aware of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and additional training had been arranged in these topics. Despite this, staff had followed the principles of the MCA Code of Practice in obtaining lawful consent. There were policies and procedures regarding the assessment of people who may not have capacity to consent to their care and the manager knew when these procedures needed to be used.

There was a choice of food and people were generally complimentary about the meals. Referrals were made to the dietician and relevant health care professionals so people were supported with any special dietary requirements.

People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed and people received regular checks such as dental and eyesight checks.

Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and dignity. People were able to exercise choice in how they spent their time. Staff took time to consult with people before providing care and showed they cared about the people in the home.

People were consulted and agreed to their care. Each person’s needs were assessed and this included obtaining a life history of people as well as ascertaining their preferences for their daily lives. Care plans showed how people’s needs were to be met and showed how and when people were supported or treated by the care and nursing staff.

Activities which were appropriate to people’s age and interests were provided. For example, people were supported to attend services at a nearby church. On the day of the inspection people were taking part in a presentation and discussion about the popular culture of the 1960s. People were observed in communal areas reading their daily newspaper and chatting with each other.

The complaints procedure was available and displayed in the entrance hall. There was a record to show complaints were looked into and a response of the findings made to the complainant.

The service promoted a person centred culture. Staff were committed to treating people as individuals, by providing a personalised service to each person and to giving the best care they could.

There has been a recent change of manager and the new manager was introducing additional audits checks so any trends could be identified and appropriate action taken. A number of other audit tools were used to check on the effectiveness, safety and quality of the service. This included seeking the views of people and staff.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 16 October 2015

The service was not always safe.

Staff recruitment procedures were not safe as adequate checks were not made that newly appointed staff and nurses were suitable to work in a care setting.

People received their medicines as prescribed with the exception of an ‘as required’ medicine for one person. This meant there was a risk the person may not receive the medicine when they needed it.

Risks to people were assessed and guidance recorded so staff knew how to reduce risks to people.

Sufficient numbers of staff were provided to meet people’s needs.



Updated 16 October 2015

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were well trained and had the skills to provide effective care.

People’s capacity to consent to care and treatment was assessed but not all staff were aware of the principles and procedures as set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. Additional training had been arranged to address this.

People were supported to have a balanced and nutritious diet. Special dietary needs were catered for. Health care needs were monitored. Staff liaised with health care services so people’s health was assessed and treatment arranged where needed.



Updated 16 October 2015

The service was caring

People were treated with kindness and dignity by staff who took time to speak and listen to people.

People were consulted about their care.

The staff promoted the privacy of people who were able to exercise their independence.



Updated 16 October 2015

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care which reflected their needs and preferences. Care needs were reviewed and changes made to the way care was provided when this was needed.

Activities and entertainment were provided based on what people wanted.

There was a complaints procedure and complaints were looked into and responded to.



Updated 16 October 2015

The service was well-led.

The provider sought the views of people and their relatives about the quality of the service to check where any improvements needed to be made.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities and were committed to treating people as individuals.

The home had a new manager who staff described as approachable. There were systems for auditing the quality and safety of the service provided to people and the new manager was introducing additional audits to enhance this.