Westwood Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Staff showed a good understanding of the people they supported and a commitment to providing person-centred care with the resources available. However, a lack of meaningful activities was a recurring theme in our discussions with people, relatives and professionals. While some group activities were available, people were not always supported to engage in individualised activities that mattered to them. One professional noted that people required more stimulation, especially when living with dementia. The home manager acknowledged the limited provision and confirmed they would review this with people to improve what was available.

Care plans contained person-centred information including histories, likes and dislikes. We observed care being provided in line with people’s preferences, such as people being left to rest if they wished.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff shared information verbally throughout the shift, which helped maintained some continuity. These discussions were not always documented. The home manager recognised this and put a plan in place for these to be minuted moving forward. Relatives told us they were kept informed when concerns arose or when health advice was needed.

Professionals spoke positively about staff at the home and told us that they followed advice appropriately. There was a stable staff team at Westwood, many of whom had worked there for years, this meant people were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their usual routines. This helped staff recognise changes in people’s needs early.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. However, information was not also stored securely. During the first day of inspection, we observed some documents containing personal information were left unattended in communal areas. This was raised with the home manager who took action to ensure this was rectified.

People's communication needs were documented in their care plans. Where people needed additional support to communicate, this was facilitated by staff. Staff knew people’s preferred methods of communication, and we observed effective conservations during our visits. If people required information in different formats, for example large print, this could be arranged by staff or leaders.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Reviews were completed regularly however people’s views were not always clearly documented. We saw people being supported with making day to day decisions. However, evidence of discussions around longer term wishes regarding items such as activities was lacking. The home manager told us that surveys had been sent out recently but the response to these had been minimal. We discussed how feedback could be gathered in other ways, which the home manager was receptive to. People did have a good rapport with staff and leaders, and relatives told us they were updated when necessary.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were involved in their care planning and regular reviews were undertaken. Where people needed support to access other services, this was provided. There were effective systems and processes in place to ensure all at the service were able to access the care, support and treatment they required when they needed it. Staff and the home manager had built good relationships with other health care providers, such as GPs and district nurse services, to improve the access for people.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people in relation to their experiences or desired outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Staff treated people equally and without discrimination. Staff understood the importance of supporting people to be included. However, there was a lack of meaningful activities for people, and we observed people sitting for periods without interaction. Care plans included individual information but did not contain specifics about people’s goals and aspirations, or views of what they would like to participate in. The home manager was receptive to this feedback and was taking steps to address this.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of inspection, there was no one receiving end of life care. However, care plans reflected people’s end of life choices and explained how people wanted their support to be delivered. Staff had received specific training in this area and told us they would feel confident in supporting someone in their final days.