Westgate House

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 ensured people’s care and treatment were effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Care plans were in place and were of a good standard. They were clear, detailed and person-centred and covered areas including personal care, eating and drinking, and social and leisure interests. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure they reflected people’s changing needs. Staff told us the electronic care planning system was easy to use. They updated care records using hand-held devices and had received training in how to use them.

The manager told us about the ‘resident of the day’ scheme. Through this scheme, the health and wellbeing of each person living in the service were reviewed in turn on a designated day.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, taking account of what was important to them. Care and treatment were delivered in line with legislation, current evidence-based practice and recognised standards.

The provider used equipment designed to support the care of older people and promote their safety and independence. For example, we saw adapted cutlery and crockery that helped people to eat independently. Other specialist equipment included cushions and mattresses designed to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers.

The provider worked collaboratively with a range of healthcare professionals to review people’s care and make changes when required. These included local GP services and clinical specialists in mental health and the care of older people.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Care plans showed that the service worked collaboratively with other services to meet people’s needs. People had access to healthcare professionals, including speech and language therapists, GPs and tissue viability nurses. Staff told us there was a positive working atmosphere at the service and that teams worked well together.

The service worked with professionals, including a specialist geriatrician and a GP. A professional told us people benefited from this multidisciplinary approach, which included monthly meetings and a weekly GP visit.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing and maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and, where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and had access to relevant healthcare professionals when required. They were offered a varied and balanced diet that regularly included fresh fruit and vegetables. Kitchen staff understood people’s individual dietary needs associated with their health conditions, including the needs of people who required a puréed diet.

Managers held regular meetings with kitchen staff to review food and nutrition. This helped to ensure meals met people’s dietary needs and preferences.

A person told us, “There’s plenty of food available every day and so much fruit such as bananas, strawberries and grapes. I just tell them what I want, and they bring it over to me.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care was routinely monitored to help ensure they received the support they needed. For example, people’s weight was monitored to identify any significant weight loss or gain. Where people required repositioning because of concerns about their skin integrity, staff recorded when this had been completed, providing a clear audit trail. Other aspects of care were monitored when required, including people’s food and fluid intake and the wound care they received.

The provider informed people about their rights in relation to consent and respected these rights when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were able to consent to their care and treatment. Staff told us they always sought people’s permission before providing care and support. A member of staff said, “First of all, we ask for permission [before providing support with personal care].”

Where people were deprived of their liberty, this was done in line with current legislation, and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been obtained from the local authority. Mental capacity assessments had been completed with people. Where people were assessed as lacking capacity to make a specific decision, best interest decisions had been made involving families and other professionals. These covered areas including personal care and the administration of medicines.