Westcliff Lodge Limited

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. At this assessment we found work was still needed to make care person centred and for care delivery to meet people’s needs as individuals.

There continued to be a lack of meaningful activities for people to be involved in to meet their social and wellbeing needs. Opportunities for activities and social engagement were limited with an over reliance on the television being on to entertain people. One person told us, “The television is always on, and the noise gets too much, it becomes irritating.”

People who remained in their bedroom had limited opportunity for social activities with care plans stating they were to be offered a 1-1 session once a week. There was no information in the care plans to indicate when these sessions were to take place and their length, what to do during those sessions and whether these arrangements met people’s preferences and wishes. One member of staff informed us these sessions rarely happened. We were therefore not assured that the recreational and social activities provided in the home always met people’s needs and preferences.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were not always 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 life.

At the last assessment we found end of life care plans lacked detail with how people could be supported at the end of their life. At this assessment we found care plans still lacked detail and had not explored people’s faith needs or gave guidance to staff as to how this might impact them at the end of their life. This meant the provider could not demonstrate how they would consistently meet the needs of people at the end of their life.