Westfield House

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 Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 79 (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 always made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Relatives we spoke with told us that people received consistently good person-centred care. One person told us, “The staff are marvellous, we are on first-name terms. I can’t fault them. They encourage him to wash and dress himself”. We saw that care was tailored to each person, and the care plans reflected this. For one person who loved listening to their collection of vinyl records, the provider had converted a small room upstairs into a private lounge for them to display and play their music in private.

Staff told us that, as most people had one-to-one staffing, they had enough time to deliver care in a person-centred manner without feeling rushed. We saw that the service had worked with external professional to support a person, following a serious injury, to stay at the service. By modifying the person’s equipment and environment, the service facilitated recovery, and the person regained their mobility.

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. We saw that people had lived in this service for a long time, and the staff knew them well. One staff member told us, “We know our residents well, and we can pick up little signs of a change in them”. We saw from care plans that people’s needs had been holistically assessed, including information on their health and wellbeing needs. This enabled staff to support them and to share accurate information with other professionals, as required, to aid continuity of care, support, and treatment. People’s medical history and assessments, as well as health appointments, flowed smoothly, showing changes over time.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate, and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Relatives told us the service was good at communicating with them, and they were kept informed of their family members well-being. One person told us, “The manager is very approachable. He always has time to talk, is ready is listen. He goes above and beyond”. We saw that staff gave people enough information to make choices.

The service’s policies and procedures were always available to staff, and the staff we spoke with had knowledge of how and where they accessed information. We saw that there was a good level of information available to people who used the service, their relatives, and staff. Team and house meeting notes were readily available, and the provider ensured staff received the latest updates within the organisation and the healthcare sector.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment, and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. One person told us, “I talk to staff, and they listen”. Relatives told us that they would recommend the service, and that where they had raised concerns, these were always dealt with. One person told us, “The manager is great. I can talk if I have any concerns. They are all good.”

Staff had regular supervisions and team meetings, which provided an open forum for discussion. Staff told us that they felt able to raise concerns, address difficult conversations, and make suggestions. The service completed regular surveys with people and families and gave them an opportunity to provide feedback and make suggestions. The provider had a complaints policy and procedures in place, and we could see that complaints were managed effectively.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed when they needed it. We saw that the service had enough trained and experienced staff supporting people. Care plans focused on people’s strengths and desired outcomes. A staff member told us, “We have a lot of coordination as a team to ensure that people’s health appointments are booked and attended.”

We saw evidence that people accessed their local, community, and other relevant health services. The service worked well with the GP surgery, and people’s health needs were addressed promptly. We saw that a person who had a recent life-changing incident had been provided with the right assessments, equipment, and support through referrals.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support, and treatment in response to this. The service had nominated champions for advocacy and communication, dignity, Inclusion and accessibility, autism awareness, and equality and diversity. These champions ensured that issues important to people were discussed and promoted.

The people using the service also had nominated ambassadors who held regular meetings with the manager and raised issues important to them. We saw evidence of outcomes for people, which were celebrated through written summaries and photographs.

People were mostly 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 lives. We saw that people had a transition period before moving into the service. A relative told us, “His transition to Westfield House was very carefully managed”. Care plans captured what people want to do and goals for the future. The service had supported people to achieve their goals, and we saw that future goals were discussed with people and their families. People had not always had a conversation about end-of-life care, and a relative told us, “We have not talked about end of life”