Westfield House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

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 shared vision, strategy, and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. Staff told us that the culture within the service was positive, with an emphasis on delivering good person-centred care. One staff member told us, “The manager is great, he listens, and you feel your contribution matters”. We saw that there were processes in place to monitor quality within the service. There was an active input from the senior leadership within the organisation to support the service.

The provider had exceptional leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment, and support, and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience, and credibility to lead effectively. They always did so with integrity, openness, and honesty. Staff told us that the manager showed compassion and was always ready to listen. Relatives told us that there was good communication from the manager; he always listened and was open to new ideas.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us that they felt fairly treated, and that they were confident that where they raised concerns, these would be dealt with by the provider. The provider encouraged people and staff to speak up, and team meeting notes reflected this. We saw posters within the service that provided information for people wanting to speak up. People who use the service told us they knew who to speak to if they had a complaint.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. Staff told us that they felt included and that the service felt like a family. The registered manager told us that his staff were brilliant, and he relied on them to provide excellent care.

Staff had received training on the Equality Act 2010, and we saw that fair recruitment processes were in place. We saw processes in place to support staff and their well-being. This included regular supervisions, appraisals, and staff meetings. Flexible working arrangements were in place for staff, and they told us the service was considerate of their personal circumstances when completing rotas. One staff member told us they had been supported to balance their work obligations and their personal parental responsibilities.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability, and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment, and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance, and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. We saw that accidents and incidents were reviewed and discussed by the senior leadership team, and actions were taken to mitigate future risk.

The service had processes in place to monitor and improve the service. For example, regular audits were conducted on aspects of the service, including care delivery and medicines administration, and staff’s competencies were regularly assessed. The service also had a business continuity plan in place in the event of any adverse incidents and a service improvement plan, which set out its plans to drive further improvement.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Relatives told us that the service worked collaboratively with them for better outcomes for people. We saw that people accessed different services within the community and were known to the local population. Other professionals told us the service worked well with them. They told us, “Our experience with Westfield House has always been good, they communicate well and promptly, are professional, and we consider that they know and support their residents well”.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation, and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome, and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. Staff were very knowledgeable and told us that they received the relevant training for their role. We saw the training matrix for the location, which showed all staff compliant. The provider ensured that there was extra training provided beyond the mandatory training to address people’s specific health needs.

The provider had a digital system for care planning and medication administration. Staff confirmed that they had been given training and support to use the systems effectively. Lessons learnt from incidents and accidents were shared with staff, and actions were monitored and reviewed accordingly.