Westward Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

Staff consistently showed warmth in their interactions, and people appeared relaxed, comfortable and confident in their responses. A relative told us, “The carers seem to have very good relationships with the residents. It's nice to see.”

Staff recognised when people were distressed and used calm, personalised approaches to help them feel safe. Care plans contained clear guidance to help staff spot early signs of anxiety and respond in ways that protected people’s dignity and reduced distress.

We saw staff were patient, gentle and attentive, tailoring support to each person’s preferred communication style.

People were treated with dignity. Staff provided personal care discreetly and took care to respect each person’s personal space and the time they needed.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that mattered to them, and staff understood what helped individuals feel comfortable and secure. One member of staff described working with a person who did not communicate verbally. They said, “We can read the signs to see if they are happy or not –like body language or facial expressions. Sometimes they may make loud noises but not necessarily words, so we reassure them if they are distressed.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

The service supported people in a personalised way that recognised their individual strengths. One person had supported the development of the provider’s Oliver McGowan training materials by sharing their lived experience to inform staff training. This showed the provider valued people’s contributions and actively involved them in improving the service.

Care plans were detailed, up to date and written in accessible language, offering clear guidance on what mattered to each person, such as their interests, sensory needs, communication style and signs of stress.

Staff showed an in‑depth understanding of people’s unique needs and preferences. Their communication and support were tailored accordingly, whether through visual cues, offering extra processing time, or breaking tasks down into clear, achievable steps. Relatives described support as “bespoke” and “tailored,” noting staff were skilled at balancing people’s different personalities and relationships.

Staff demonstrated a strong insight into how people chose to live their lives, including dietary requirements, cultural preferences, daily routines and what helped them feel safe. They actively involved people in choosing décor, activities, and how they spent their day. Staff knew people well and were sensitive to complex emotional and behavioural needs, responding with patience and consistency.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The service actively encouraged people to make choices about their lives. People were supported to take positive risks, such as travelling independently or managing their own medication where safe to do so.

Daily living skills were supported in a way that built confidence. For example, people planned menus, cooked meals, completed household tasks and managed parts of their personal routines with appropriate prompts. Staff respected people’s right to refuse support and recorded decisions clearly, following mental capacity principles.

People’s views were sought in regular meetings about household changes, garden improvements and activity planning. Relatives described staff as promoting independence while remaining realistic about people’s vulnerabilities. They told us, “They really do try and promote [family members] independence. They are also realistic which I really like. [Family member] is extremely vulnerable financially and will give their money away if out. They are very aware of things like that and will make sure they are supervised.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

The service responded promptly and appropriately when people needed support. Staff recognised early signs of distress or heightened emotions and used de‑escalation methods tailored to each individual, such as offering quiet space, walking outside, or using humour to reduce anxiety.

Care plans provided clear, practical guidance on managing people’s mental health needs, communication difficulties and known behavioural triggers. This ensured staff knew when someone might need reassurance, distraction or structured routines to help them feel safe. They were able to react quickly when someone became unsettled, redirecting or supporting them in line with their agreed plans.

Relatives told us communication with staff was excellent and staff worked “in partnership” with them when issues arose. One relative told us, “Whenever there is an issue the manager will ring me. We will look at the issue together andfind a way forward.”

The provider considered the potential impact of environmental disruption during decorating works. Their own team of tradespeople were familiar with people’s needs and scheduled their activities to cause minimal disturbance. Staff worked proactively to support people to maintain their routines and remain settled as far as possible.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The service supported staff wellbeing and created a positive, open working culture where the team felt valued. Staff repeatedly told us they were “well supported,” with approachable leaders who offered guidance, mentoring and regular supervision.

Staff training was comprehensive and up to date, including mental health, positive behaviour support and the Oliver McGowan framework. Staff said training helped them understand people’s complex needs and respond confidently. New starters received structured inductions and practical coaching.

Supervisions were meaningful, giving staff space to discuss concerns, learning and development goals. The registered manager was described as “supportive,” “brilliant,” and “always there when needed.” Staff wellbeing was routinely considered, with flexible working and guidance when health issues affected their ability to work.