You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 23 February 2017

We inspected Westwood on the 16 January 2017 and the inspection was unannounced. Westwood provides accommodation and support for up to nine people with a learning disability who require accommodation and personal care. The service was in a house and people had bedrooms on the ground and first floor which were accessed via a staircase. Care and support was provided to people living with a learning disability, dementia and mental health needs..

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

People were safe. Staff understood the importance of people's safety and knew how to report any concerns they might have. Risks to people's health, safety and wellbeing had been assessed and plans were in place, which instructed staff how to minimise any identified risks to keep people safe from harm or injury.

There were suitable arrangements in place for the safe storage, receipt and management of people’s medicines. Medicine profiles were in place which provided an overview of the individual’s prescribed medicine, the reason for administration, dosage and any side effects.

There were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet people’s needs and staff knew people well and had built up good relationships with people. The registered provider had effective recruitment procedures in place.

The registered manager and staff had received training to meet people’s needs and were knowledgeable about of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Mental capacity assessments had not been completed for every decision taken for people who may not be able to consent.

Staff treated people as individuals with dignity and respect. Staff were knowledgeable about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs. Staff were skilled to approach people in different ways to suit the person and communicate in a calm and friendly manner which people responded to positively.

Peoples' health was monitored and referrals were made to health services in an appropriate and timely manner. Any recommendations made by health care professionals were acted upon and incorporated into peoples' care plans.

People who wanted to be occupied had busy lifestyles which reflected their lifestyle choices and likes and dislikes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and upheld by staff who valued peoples’ unique characters.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Good interactions were seen throughout our inspection, such as staff sitting and talking with people as equals. People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted.

People received a person centred service that enabled them to live active and meaningful lives in the way they wanted. People led full and varied lives and were supported with a variety of activities often with one to one support.

Complaints were used as a means of improving the service and people felt confident that they could make a complaint that any concerns would be taken seriously.

There was an open, transparent culture and good communication within the staff team. Staff spoke highly of the registered manager and their leadership style. The management team had positive relationships with the care staff.

The registered manager took an active role within the service and led by example. There were clear lines of accountability and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The provider had robust systems in place to assess and audit the quality of the service. However the quality checks that we could see were happening were not always written down in one document.

Inspection areas



Updated 23 February 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm and abuse by staff who understood their responsibilities under safeguarding.

Risk assessments were comprehensive and reduced hazards.

Staffing numbers met people�s needs safely.

Medicines were managed safely and stored and administered within best practice guidelines.



Updated 23 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received sufficient and told us that they felt supported by the registered manager.

Consent was being sought and the principles of the MCA complied with in most cases.

People received adequate food and drink and people with special diets had their food and fluids safely.

People�s healthcare needs were met and people had access to a wide range of healthcare professionals when they needed them.



Updated 23 February 2017

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and used the information about people to effectively support them and build up caring relationships.

People and their families were involved in their lives and could make decisions about their care.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was encouraged.



Updated 23 February 2017

The service was responsive.

People received a person centred service and staff responded effectively to people�s needs.

Complaints were responded to appropriately and were used as a tool for improving services.



Updated 23 February 2017

The service was well led.

The culture of the service was open, person focused and inclusive.

The management team provided clear leadership to the staff team and were a visible presence in the service.

Quality monitoring systems had been effective and had led to changes when needed.