Westwood

The service accommodates up to 23 people in a large detached property. At the time of our inspection there were 17 people using the service. The service specialises in the care of older people and those living with dementia.

We found the following examples of good practice.

When people had tested positive to COVID-19, staff supported people to follow the most recent government guidance to isolate in their own rooms.

Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control, food hygiene and COVID-19. They had also been trained in hand washing and donning and doffing personal protective equipment. Staff who were more vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 had been supported through shielding and staff had requested the advice of a medical professional.

A regular programme of testing for COVID-19 was in place for staff and people who lived in the service. This meant swift action could be taken if anyone received a positive test result.

Cleaning took place throughout the day, when the domestic staff finished their shift, care staff continued to ensure that touch points were regularly sanitised. The manager recognised there was a shortage of allocated cleaning hours; they recently recruited a housekeeper to double the current staff hours for cleaning.

There was a robust infection prevention and control audit in place. Where there were areas for improvement identified, there was a clear audit trail and information on how this had been followed up.

People told us they were really well cared for and kept safe throughout the pandemic, one person asked if there could be an award for the staff and management.

People’s experience of using this service:

People that we spoke to said that Westwood was a good place to live and that staff treated them with respect and kindness.

People’s health and social care needs were managed well by management and the staff team. There were positive relationships with professionals which supported people’s overall wellbeing.

Medicine was administered safely and there were clear protocols in place for medicine which was taken when required. Records were kept up to date and medication administration records (MAR) were all correct and checked by staff and the registered manager.

The registered manager showed evidence of ongoing quality monitoring across all aspects of the service. Any concerns raised by residents’ relatives or staff were investigated and addressed. This was also used to inform improved practices throughout the home.

People had enough to eat and drink. People were offered choices and had an input into the menu planning. The lunchtime experience was relaxed, and staff helped with serving meals and assisting people where necessary.

There were a variety of activities, both to keep people occupied and to entertain them. There were also physical activities to assist with people’s mobility. People were consulted on what they wanted to do, giving people choice and control.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection: The last inspection rating was good (published 24 November 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner

The service was registered to provide support and accommodation to 24 people who may have a mental health condition or maybe living with dementia. There were 21 people living in the home at the time of our inspection.

The service had a registered manager. 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 felt safe and staff understood their role in protecting people from the risk of harm. Risks in relation to people’s daily life were assessed and planned for and these were discussed with people to ensure they understood how to keep safe. People’s preferences were incorporated in their support plan and there were regular reviews of people’s care to ensure it accurately reflected their needs.

The staff were friendly and professional in their approach and people were treated with dignity and respect and had their choices acted on. People could make decisions and chose how to spend their time; staff knew how to act if people did not have the capacity to make decisions and where restrictions were placed on people, applications had been made to ensure these were lawful.

The staff were kind and caring when supporting people and people were confident that staff supported them in the way they wanted. Staff had the knowledge and skills to provide safe care and there was sufficient staff available to support people the way that they wanted.

People could eat and drink what they liked. People enjoyed activities and opportunities to socialise. People stayed in touch with people who were important to them and spent time with friends and family in the home and could choose to stay away from the home. People knew who to speak with if they had any concerns and they felt these would be taken seriously. Arrangements were in place so that actions were taken following any concerns which were raised.

Health concerns were monitored and people received specialist health care intervention when this was needed. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines at the right time, as prescribed.

Quality assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the focus was on continuous improvement. There was regular communication with people and staff whose views were gained on how the service was run; their views were used to make continuous improvements.

People told us that the food at the home was very good and they always had enough. People said there was a menu planned for a month but they could request alternatives if they did not like the menu for the day. Staff, including the cook, we spoke with were aware of people's dietary needs. They ensured that people's dietary needs were always met.

We saw that the provider had effective procedures in place to ensure that people received their medicines safely. Some people self-administered their medicines and this was risk assessed by the provider before taking place.

The provider had sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service. People told us that there were always enough members of staff to provide help and support.

We saw that records kept by the provider were accurate, fit for purpose and kept securely. Records were regularly checked to ensure that they were accurate.