Westgate House

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 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 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 and used to continually identify and embed good practice. Regular meetings involving heads of service reviewed all aspects of practice. These meetings included reflection on events that had occurred, what had been learnt and how this learning had been shared with the wider staff team.

The provider told us they acknowledged when things went wrong. They showed us how they communicated with people, apologised for what had happened, kept people informed and explained what had been learnt from their findings.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care in which safety was managed and monitored. They ensured continuity of care, including when people moved between services.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service. Assessments covered areas including personal care, communication, health conditions, and their cultural needs. This helped to ensure people experienced a smooth transition from their previous home or hospital.

A professional told us the home sought support from external professionals when required. They added that the home was responsive and assessed the needs of people referred to the service without delay.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and how this could best be achieved. Staff focused on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live safely and free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns promptly and appropriately.

Staff told us they had completed safeguarding adults training and understood their responsibility to report any allegations or suspicions of abuse. A member of staff said, “I would report it [suspected abuse] to the manager.”

Policies and procedures were in place to guide staff. These clearly outlined everyone’s responsibilities for keeping people safe and ensuring information was shared with relevant people.

The management team reviewed safeguarding matters at monthly meetings. Discussions included the progress of any safeguarding cases and the actions taken in response to issues identified.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks in a holistic way. Staff provided safe and supportive care that met people’s needs and enabled them to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place and were generally of a good standard. They identified the risks people faced and provided guidance for staff on how to manage them. The assessments were detailed and covered risks associated with people’s health conditions and the care of older people. We found staff followed the risk assessments. For example, where an assessment stated that a person’s fluid intake should be monitored, records showed this had been done. Some people’s Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans had not been fully completed. We discussed this with the manager, who took immediate action to ensure they were completed during our assessment.

Staff we spoke with understood the risks people faced and how to support them safely. They gave examples of situations which could present risks to people. A staff member said, “Risks we see are around the things older people would struggle with. Such things as hot drinks, making sure they are not too hot and that people are able to manage them.”

The provider identified and controlled potential risks within the care environment. They ensured equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider had taken steps to ensure the premises were safe. External contractors had completed mandatory safety checks relating to the building, including checks of the water systems, gas and electrical installations. Equipment, including hoists and hydraulic baths, had also been checked. The provider carried out its own safety checks, including regular tests of emergency lighting and fire alarms.

The home was well maintained. During the 2 days of our visit, we did not identify anything within the environment that posed a safety risk to people living or working at the service.

The provider ensured there were enough suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff told us there were enough staff working at the service and that they had sufficient time to carry out their duties and support people safely. We observed that staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs. For example, when people used their call bells, staff responded promptly.

The provider had robust recruitment processes in place. Records showed that pre-employment checks had been completed in line with current legislation and best practice. These included obtaining references from previous employers and completing Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks to help ensure staff were suitable to work with people who used the service.

At the time of our visit, there was a stable staff team. Managers told us the care home did not need to use agency staff who were unfamiliar with the service. Instead, staff from within the service or neighbouring establishments were available to cover short-term vacancies.

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.

Systems were in place to promote good practice in infection prevention and control. Staff told us they wore personal protective equipment when supporting people with personal care, and we observed this in practice. Infection prevention and control audits were completed every 6 months. Cleaning schedules set out which areas needed to be cleaned and how often. Staff signed the schedules to confirm the required cleaning had been completed, and the head of housekeeping checked these records. The home was visibly clean on the day of our inspection.

The provider had effective policies and procedures in place, which were reviewed regularly and amended when necessary. These clearly outlined staff responsibilities for keeping people and staff safe, as well as the actions staff should take in the event of an outbreak of an infectious disease.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure medicines were administered safely. We observed staff administering medicines safely during our assessment. People received their prescribed medicines in line with their individual needs. Medicines were stored securely in medicines trolleys during administration and in designated rooms when not in use.

The ‘when required’ (PRN) medicine protocols we reviewed were well written and clearly described when these medicines should be administered. Each protocol had been reviewed regularly and agreed and signed by a GP.