Westbourne House Nursing Home

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 72 (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, matters of learning were discussed with staff in regular meetings. People told us they felt able to raise safety concerns and felt listened to. One person told us, “I would speak to one of the carers if I had a problem, but I haven’t had any complaints.”

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. The service had an effective process of ensuring safe admission into the service. This included positive collaboration with health professionals to ensure smooth transitions and continuity of care. One professional told us, “There are no barriers with the service, discharges from hospital are efficient and timely."

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. Every person we spoke to at the service said they felt safe and had no concerns about their safety. Staff had all received up to date safeguarding training and implemented this learning into their practice. With 1 staff member telling us, “If I suspect a safeguarding concern, I will straight away report it to the manager and make sure that the vulnerable person is safeguarded against any form of abuse.” Staff had also received up to date training on the mental capacity act at the time of the inspection.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People’s risk assessments were detailed and provided sufficient guidance to staff to enable them to carry out safe and effective care. Risk assessments were reviewed and updated on a regular basis in accordance with the service’s policy. Staff were knowledgeable on the risks to people and how to ensure these were managed without restricting a person’s well-being. Staff told us, “We balance safety with independence, supporting people to live fully while minimising harm."

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People were cared for in a safe environment which met their needs. Facilities, equipment and technology were viewed to be well-maintained. There were effective arrangements to monitor the safety and up-keep of the premises such as water temperature checks and regular fire safety drills.

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. We saw evidence of safe staffing levels at the service; people also told us there were sufficient staff on duty to ensure safe care. Staff told us, “Westbourne House ensures an appropriate level of staffing, day or night. I have never had any issues around staffing.” There were robust and safe recruitment practices in place to make sure that all staff, including agency staff and volunteers were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role.

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 were viewed to be wearing personal protective equipment (PPE), when carrying out care tasks. Staff told us there were sufficient PPE supplies within the service, which they could access with ease. People receiving care commented, “Staff always use gloves and aprons when they look after me.” With another person telling us, “Staff always wash their hands first before supporting me with anything."

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. During the inspection, we identified some medicines shortfalls which were immediately addressed and had no impact on people receiving their medicines.These included liquid medications and eye-drops with no dates of opening, some people’s medication administration records did not detail their allergies and stock checks on occasion, were not correct. One medicines room was un-tidy and there were gaps in the recording of medicine room temperature checks. The leaders at the service carried out a full internal medicines audit and rectified the concerns promptly.