Westwood Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs were assessed and care delivered in line with their care plans. Regular reviews were undertaken and relatives told us that they were involved in this process as necessary. People were also supported to give their views about how they wanted their care to be provided. One person had recently moved to the service and they told us they had been made to feel very welcome.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Nationally recognised tools to measure and monitor risks were used. For example, the Waterlow scoring system was used to identified when a person was at higher risk of skin damage. Where risks had been highlighted, measures were taken to minimise these. Aids such as pressure relieving cushions were seen being used.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff and the home manager communicated well with other healthcare professionals and made referrals to external agencies in a timely manner. One professional told us, “[Home manager] and staff are very engaging and contact us if they have any concerns. I believe they follow the advice they are given correctly.”

Information was shared between the team at daily handover meetings and any changes in people’s needs were discussed. The home had regular ‘ward rounds’ from the local GP surgery to enable any concerns regarding people’s health to be reviewed readily.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Mealtime support was not always robust. We observed staff offering people choices regarding their meals and drinks. However, one person’s meal was removed before they had eaten it. They required encouragement and this was not given. We raised this with the home manager who explained this was unusual practice and would be raised with the staff involved immediately. On the second day of inspection, this person was encouraged with their meal and consumed the entire amount. A review of the care notes showed this may have been a one-off incident however it was an area which required improvement to prevent harm.

People were asked to choose their meals from a menu and could also have an alternative meal if they wanted. People had access to GPs and other professionals if required.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s needs were routinely monitored to ensure care and treatment remained suitable and effective. The staff had good working relationships with external professionals, and they worked confidently to ensure health outcomes were positive and consistent. One professional told us that staff had worked hard with one person to settle them in and support them throughout this period. They were now enjoying their time at Westwood.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were supported to be involved in decision making about their care. Throughout our visits, we observed staff asking for people’s consent prior to carrying out tasks. One staff member said, “We do try to do our best by everyone. We get to know people and can recognise if they’re having a good day or not. Sometimes people need a bit more reassurance and explaining what happens next. We wouldn’t do anything without asking.”

Staff had received training in Mental Capacity Act (2005) and demonstrated a good knowledge of how this applied to their role. Relatives or representatives had been contacted by staff when important discussions were needed. Where people were unable to make their own decisions, staff provided support in people’s best interests.