We carried out a review of the data available to us about Westview House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Westview House, you can give feedback on this service.
Westview House is a care home registered to provide accommodation for up to 38 people. The service provides specialist care to people living with varying degrees of cognitive impairment. Some of the people at Westview House had complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were 28 people living in the home. Westview House also provides a home care service for people living in the community, although at the time of the inspection no one was receiving this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided and staff were caring and compassionate. We observed that staff were kind and treated them with respect.
Risks to people were assessed and minimised and people were protected from the risk of abuse. People were supported to take their medicines as required and there were suitable systems for ensuring the home was clean and equipment was safe for use.
Staff were recruited safely, and there were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe. Staff had received appropriate training and support to enable them to meet people’s needs.
Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing person-centred care based on people's preferences and wishes. The staff team knew people well and had built trusting and meaningful relationships with them. People and their families were involved in planning how they wished to live their lives, and the service ensured that care was always personalised to meet the needs of each individual living there.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were kind, patient and responsive to people's needs. People were treated with dignity and staff respected their privacy
People were supported to engage in a variety of activities of their choice. Activities were available in the home and out in the community.
The provider had systems and processes to monitor quality within the home. The manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and shared information when required.
People, their families, staff and external professionals all told us that the provider and manager were supportive, and the home was well led.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 8 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 04 and 08 November 2016.
There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
People and their families told us they felt the home was safe. Staff and the registered manager had received safeguarding training and were able to demonstrate an understanding of the provider’s safeguarding policy and explain the action they would take if they identified any concerns.
The risks relating to people’s health and welfare were assessed and these were recorded along with actions identified to reduce those risks in the least restrictive way. They were personalised and provided sufficient information to allow staff to protect people whilst promoting their independence.
People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable in caring for people with cognitive impairments and had received an induction into the home and appropriate training, professional development and supervision to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to enable them to engage with people in a relaxed and unhurried manner.
There were suitable systems in place to ensure the safe storage and administration of medicines. Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and assessments. Staff had developed excellent working relationships with healthcare professionals, such as chiropodists, opticians, dentists, GPs and mental health specialist which enhanced the care people received.
The management team and staff protected people’s rights to make their own decisions. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to care, legislation designed to protect people’s legal rights was followed correctly and confidently by staff.
People were treated with dignity and respect at all times. Staff demonstrated caring and positive relationships with people and were sensitive to their individual choices. Staff were skilled in helping people to express their views and communicated with them in ways they could understand.
People received exceptionally person centred care from staff who knew each person well, their life and what mattered to them. The people using the service experienced a level of care and support that enhanced their wellbeing and improved their quality of life. The service provided support that focused on the individual’s needs and the needs of their families.
People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Mealtimes were a social event and staff supported people, when necessary in a patient and friendly manner.
People and when appropriate their families were involved in discussions about their care planning, which reflected their assessed needs.
People benefitted from an exceptionally well-managed and organised service and the provider and registered manager led by example. The provider’s clear vision and values underpinned staff practice and put people at the heart of the service. Staff were aware the vision and values, how they related to their work and spoke positively about the culture and management of the home.
The registered manager was very approachable and well supported by the provider. There were comprehensive quality assurance processes in place using formal audits and regular contact with people, relatives, professionals and staff. Family members told us they were given the opportunity to provide feedback about the culture and development of the home and all said they would recommend the service to families and friends. The providers were responsive to new ideas and had developed links with external organisations and professionals to enhance the staff's and their own knowledge of best practice and drive forward improvements.
We spoke with the manager and deputy manager, the shift leader, two care staff, the compliance manager, two cleaners, the laundry staff, the cook and kitchen assistant. Six staff told us 'We are well supported.' Another said 'I really enjoy it here. There is a good atmosphere.'
We reviewed care records for three people using the service who had varying needs. We found that people who lived at the home experienced safe and effective care because their needs were assessed and reviewed, and care plans kept current.
People were provided with a varied menu and had the support they needed to help them eat and drink.
People were protected from the risk of the unsafe management of medication because staff were trained and followed clear procedures.
People using the service benefited from a staff team who were well trained and supported to do their job.
Care plans were individualised and additional one to one support had been put in place for two people who had additional needs.
We found that the home had processes in place to ensure that the quality of the service was monitored on a regular basis and that where appropriate change had been implemented.
Everyone we spoke with confirmed that their privacy and dignity were maintained at all times. People also said that they were able to make day to day decisions such as what time they got up and how and where they spent their time. Visitors also told us that they had no concerns about privacy and dignity and that people were treated with respect.
People said that they had no concerns about how their personal care needs were met. People said that if they were unwell then staff would contact a doctor for them. People said staff were available when they needed them and knew what care they required. Visitors confirmed these statements.
People said that they felt staff were available whenever they needed assistance. They also said that staff were very pleasant and had the necessary time to meet their needs. Visitors also said that staff were available when required and that staff knew how to care for people. Visitors said the staff were wonderful.
We also spoke with other professionals involved in the care of people. They stated that they had no concerns about how people's health and care needs were met.