Westcliff Lodge Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

At the last assessment the service was in breach of legal regulation for person centred care. We found at this assessment the breach continued. The provider did not have systems in place to ensure care was appropriate and met people’s needs.

This service scored 63 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Although the provider completed preadmission assessments, we found these assessments did not always contain all the information needed to support people safely. This meant staff did not have the most accurate information to support people’s care needs.

The deputy manager had started to engage with relatives to ask for their feedback on people’s care needs and provided feedback to them, when they updated, and reviewed peoples care documentation. The deputy manager was able to share with us an example of emails he had sent to relatives to update them following care reviews.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We found the recording of fluid and dietary records had generally improved. People were complimentary of the food being provided and told us they were given choice over what they ate. Some people told us they could do with more fruit and vegetables.

During our visits, we noted there were no snacks or fruits for people to help themselves to, but drinks were available. There were no arrangements to help provide a positive dining experience for people by making sure the dining areas were prepared and set to make it inviting and pleasant for people. Staff when they established what people would like to eat served this to them where they were sitting or in their bedrooms. There was not an opportunity for people to use this time to socialise with each other in a setting conducive to eating and socialising. There was limited seating and dining tables available for people to use. Following the assessment the provider told us they were making changes at the service to have a dedicated dining area.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The service worked closely with their local GP surgery and had weekly reviews with a visiting practice nurse. Where additional health needs were being supported the district nursing team attended the service to facilitate this. People told us they had access to dentist, chiropody and opticians when needed. One person said, “I saw the GP last week we had a chat, and they took notes. Dentist and optician is all in hand.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

There had been some improvements in this area since the last assessment with the deputy manager developing a system, where they could monitor people’s care monthly and raise issues with the GP when needed. However, we found this area still needed development as some areas of people’s care needs had not been addressed and risk assessments did not always match people’s needs or abilities. This meant people were at risk of receiving care that did not fully meet their assessed needs or support them to achieve the best possible outcomes.

We did not look at Consent to care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.