Westfield Residential 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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.

The provider made sure people's health, care, wellbeing and communication needs were assessed and reviewed. Care plans contained personalised information about people's health conditions, communication needs, mobility, nutrition, preferences and risks, and the service was updating and reviewing records as part of the transition to an electronic care planning system. Staff demonstrated good knowledge of people's individual needs and preferences, and care plans reflected people's hobbies, routines and wishes.

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.

People’s nutrition, hydration, weight and health conditions were monitored, and care plans included guidance about specific dietary and health needs. Staff encouraged people to eat and drink, adapted support to individual preferences and arranged access to healthcare professionals when required. During the inspection we observed staff offering choices, encouraging food and fluid intake and supporting people with meals. One person told us the food was “very good”. One relative explained, “There’s always drinks beside [Name] and they sit with them during mealtimes and encourage them to eat.”

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 maintained positive working relationships with a range of healthcare professionals including GPs, pharmacists, district nurses, paramedics and specialist services. A healthcare professional told us, “Staff are on the ball with requests for visits. They know people really well; they are good at spotting when people have deteriorated or identifying potential urinary tract infections (UTI) or chest infections. They seek interventions at the right time and are always organised." Another said, “The staff are always really friendly and helpful.” Records showed people were supported to access healthcare services and referrals were made appropriately when concerns were identified. Staff also used handovers, meetings and electronic systems to share information and coordinate care.

The provider generally supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff generally supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff worked proactively with healthcare professionals and specialist services. They arranged access to healthcare services, including chiropody, dentistry, optical care and GP support. Staff used the information to support meal choices, nutrition and daily living activities. Records showed healthcare recommendations were obtained, for example, advice from District Nurses and GPs. However, evidence was not always available to demonstrate these recommendations had been fully incorporated into care planning documentation. Activities, social opportunities and community links were available, including flower arranging, baking, gardening, visiting speakers and planned events. A relative told us, “They keep us informed with [Name’s] health issues.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. However, they did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People received ongoing monitoring of nutritional needs, long-term health conditions and medicines. The provider had begun to strengthen monitoring systems, but these were not yet fully effective. For example, records relating to pressure care and medicines management, did not always provide assurance that identified risks were fully monitored and acted upon consistently. The provider had recognised these concerns and submitted evidence of actions taken following the inspection, including updated care plans, medicines documentation and new clinical oversight tools.

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

The provider ensured people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment and supported in line with relevant legislation. Mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions, deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) and lasting power of attorney (LPA) documentation were available. Care plans contained guidance for staff about gaining consent and supporting choice. Staff continued to seek verbal consent throughout care delivery. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and respected their rights to refuse care where they had capacity. Staff offered people choices about meals, activities and daily routines, and recorded how staff respected people's wishes, including when people declined aspects of their care. One member of staff explained, "If [people] say no, that's OK we go back later."