Westward Care Home

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff assessed people’s needs in a thorough and person‑centred way. People’s support plans were detailed, regularly reviewed, and reflected their current needs, preferences and risks. Staff involved people in conversations about their care, which helped plans stay relevant and respectful. We saw clear assessments covering communication, behaviours, physical and mental health, finances, and daily living. These included specialist input from the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT), psychology, physiotherapy and mental health teams when required.

Staff understood each person’s routines, triggers and what helped them feel safe. This supported people with complex needs, including autistic people and people with learning disabilities, to lead active lives. Relatives told us staff understood people well and responded consistently to changes. One relative said, “Staff are able to support people when distressed or agitated. I have witnessed that myself. They also recognise the warning signs. One person was becoming upset, and they knew instantly and supported them.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Staff followed specialist guidance, including SALT recommendations by the Speech and Language Therapy Team (SALT) for safe eating and drinking, Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) plans focused on reducing restrictive practices, and clear protocols for supporting people with long‑term conditions.

People’s care plans contained detailed information about risks, triggers, communication needs and preferred strategies. Staff consistently applied these approaches and described how they used positive communication, redirection, and structure rather than medication to support people during episodes of distress. PRN (when required) medication was used only as a last resort, and there was strong evidence of de‑escalation and alternative strategies being attempted first.

People had access to a full range of health services, and staff helped them attend appointments and understand treatment plans. Care was adapted following changes in health, such as mobility difficulties or mental health needs, with evidence of prompt specialist referral.

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.

The service worked collaboratively within the staff team and with external professionals. Staff described strong communication, regular supervisions, team meetings and supportive leadership. They told us they felt well supported and able to raise concerns or ask for help.

There was effective partnership working with GPs, Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) services, psychology teams, Intensive Assessment and Treatment Teams (IATT), and specialist Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) practitioners. These professionals contributed to assessments, reviews and care planning, helping ensure people’s support remained safe and responsive. Staff demonstrated a shared understanding of each person’s needs, which contributed to consistent care and stable routines.

Relatives told us communication with staff was excellent. They described working in partnership with the service to support their family member. Staff involved them in decisions and updates about their family members’ wellbeing. One relative described the environment as “like a family”, highlighting trust and collaboration.

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

The service supported people to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to lead active lives, make healthy choices and follow routines that supported both their physical and emotional health. People took part in activities such as swimming, community groups, volunteering, walking, gardening and exercise classes, which were planned around their individual interests.

People with specific conditions, such as gluten intolerance, pre‑diabetes, dysphagia or mental health needs, received tailored support and monitoring. Staff followed specialist dietary guidance and prompted people with oral health, hydration and healthy eating. Weight monitoring and regular reviews ensured changes were identified quickly.

Staff supported people with emotional wellbeing using structured routines, reassurance, and positive behaviour support. People told us they enjoyed activities, felt supported to pursue interests and benefited from stable relationships with staff.

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.

The service monitored people’s outcomes and used regular reviews to improve support. Monthly holistic reviews brought together information about incidents, activities, health needs, behaviour patterns and progress towards goals. This helped staff identify trends and adjust plans when needed.

Quality assurance processes, including audits and oversight from the provider’s Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) lead and senior leadership, contributed to consistent improvements and ensured safe, person‑centred care.

Staff used daily notes and behaviour monitoring tools to understand triggers and track progress. Outcomes were clearly recorded in care plans, including goals related to independence, social activity, health, emotional regulation and routines. Staff and managers reviewed these with people to check whether support was helping them achieve what mattered to them.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The service always sought people’s consent in line with legislation and good practice. Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act and described how they presumed capacity, offered choices, and adapted communication to help people understand decisions.

Where people lacked capacity for specific decisions, assessments and best‑interest processes were clearly documented. These covered areas such as finances, medication, restrictive practices and complex health procedures. Care plans included easy‑read consent forms, communication guidance and clear steps for staff to follow.

People told us staff respected their decisions, and relatives confirmed staff worked closely with them when consent or best‑interest decisions were required. Staff were confident about escalating safeguarding or capacity concerns to managers or external agencies when needed.