Westfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good.

At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. We saw that incidents and accidents were reported and fully investigated, and any learning was embedded through team briefs and training. Incidents were reviewed at several levels within the organisation, and safeguarding concerns were reported promptly. We observed and were told by staff of changes that had been made to support a person following a recent serious incident, meaning they could continue to live at Westfield House safely.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. We saw that the service shared information with other health professionals, and people had access to assessments when required. Staff knew people’s needs well and how to keep them safe. We observed that care plans from external professionals were embedded in people’s care plans and implemented in their daily care for better outcomes. For example, people’s Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) plans were clearly presented in their care plans, their risks known to care staff and the cook, and the service carried out monthly review of each person’s eating and drinking to ensure changes were picked up and shared with the relevant professionals.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

A safeguarding policy and procedure were in place and in line with local authority policy. All safeguarding incidents were recorded, and we saw appropriate action taken in response. Staff told us that they were always made aware of the outcome of any safeguarding referral, and any learning was embedded in their daily practice.

The provider worked well with people to fully understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that fully met people’s needs and was safe, supportive, and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. We saw that the provider completed risk assessments and care plans that provided clear direction for staff to effectively support people. Staff told us they felt confident supporting people and had the necessary training for this. Identified risks were regularly recorded, mitigated, and reviewed. We saw that the provider regularly reviewed the needs of people, and measures were put in place to ensure they could continue to live safely within their home.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities, and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We saw that the environment was clean and free from clutter. The provider carried out regulatory checks to ensure that all equipment was in working order. We observed that the external environment was overgrown at our first visit, but this had been resolved at our second visit, and the provider had an improvement plan in place to further enhance the work already done on the external back garden.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled, and experienced staff who received effective support, supervision, and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff told us that they felt confident and supported in their role and were keen to tell us what extra training they had received. Staff training was up to date, and we saw evidence of regular competency checks.

A relative told us, “The staff are a great bunch and really care for the people living here.” We saw that staff had been recruited safely and there was a robust recruitment process in place. The registered manager had an overview of all the support: training and supervision for its staff. Staff told us they felt supported, both informally and formally, and valued. The provider had a champions in care system in place, which gave staff specific areas of responsibility to champion.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Staff had up-to-date infection prevention and control training. Processes were in place to manage infection prevention and control. The service had an infection prevention and control policy in place that was compliant with good practice guidance. The service’s business continuity plan also considered the risks associated with infectious outbreaks, particularly in relation to mass staff absence.

We saw staff using personal protective equipment (PPE) as required for all personal care and to keep the home clean. We identified some areas of concern within the bathrooms and kitchen, which were swiftly resolved by the provider.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes were made. Records we checked showed that people received their medicines as prescribed and that prescribers regularly reviewed people’s medicines. Medicines were stored securely. The service had assessed the risks around people’s medicines. There was person-centred information available for staff to refer to when giving people their medicines. Staff regularly had their competence assessed in medicine management to ensure they managed people’s medicines safely. Any changes in people’s medication were implemented and communicated clearly to the staff team.