You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The inspection took place on 27 October 2017 and was unannounced.

Westhill Care Home is a residential care home providing support for up to 9 people with a learning disability or autism. At the time of our inspection there were 9 people at the home. People had varying communication needs, one person was able to provide verbal feedback and we observed the care and interactions for other people living at the home.

At our last inspection we found breaches of regulation. At this inspection we found actions had been taken to ensure the regulations had been met and the service had improved.

There was 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 kept safe by robust risk assessments that identified any risks they faced and measures to keep them safe. Plans were developed to promote people’s independence whilst ensuring their safety. Staff understood the importance of promoting people’s independence and this was completed in line with people’s care plans. Where incidents had occurred, staff took appropriate actions to prevent them from reoccurring. Checks were in place to reduce the risk of environmental hazards and plans had been drawn up to keep people safe in the event of an emergency.

People’s care plans were person-centred and reflected the things that were important to them. People had access to a wide variety of activities that reflected their interests. Staff involved people in their care and encouraged them to make choices. Staff understood how people communicated and used these methods to encourage choices in areas such as activities and food.

People were served food in line with their preferences. Meals were tailored to people’s choices and people were involved in shopping for food and preparing meals. Where people had specific healthcare needs, these were met. Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and worked alongside healthcare professionals where appropriate. Staff were trained to administer people’s medicines and the provider followed best practice in the storage and management of people’s prescribed medicines.

Staff were trained to carry out their roles. Staff training was specific to the needs of the people that they supported, as well as covering mandatory areas such as fire, health and safety and safeguarding. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse. Staff also understood the principals of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People’s care was delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff ensured that people’s consent was sought before care was provided. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and involved people in their care. People were supported by staff that knew them well.

There were sufficient numbers of trained staff to meet people’s needs. The provider carried out checks to ensure staff were suitable for their roles. We did identify two instances where work histories were incomplete. We recommended that the provider reviews their recruitment procedures to ensure full work histories are obtained for new staff.

Systems were in place to measure the quality of the care that people received. The provider carried out regular audits to ensure the quality of people’s care. Surveys were conducted to gather the feedback of people and relatives. People had access to regular meeting sot be involved in the running of the home and staff were also encouraged to contribute their ideas. Staff told us that they felt well supported by management.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were assessed with plans developed to ensure people�s safety.

Where incidents had occurred, staff responded appropriately.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to keep people safe.

The provider carried out checks on new staff to ensure that they were suitable for their roles. We recommended that the provider reviews their processes to ensure full work histories are gathered.

People received their medicines safely.

Plans were in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was effective.

Care was provided in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People were involved in choosing and preparing their meals.

Where people had specific healthcare needs, staff ensured that these were met.

Staff were trained appropriately to carry out their roles.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was caring.

Staff involved people in their care.

People were supported by staff that knew them well.

Staff encouraged people to develop skills and become independent.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected by staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People had access to a range of activities that reflected their interests.

Care plans were person centred and regular reviews were undertaken to identify changes in need.

People were made aware of how to raise a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 December 2017

The service was well-led.

Regular checks were carried out to assure the quality of the care that people received.

Surveys were carried out to gather the views of people and relatives.

Staff felt well supported by management.

The provider kept and maintained accurate and up to date records.