Westward Care 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 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 to continually identify and embed good practice, which supported a ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ approach for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. The registered manager introduced a “lessons learned” tool so staff could reflect after incidents, record what went well, what did not, and agree changes with staff to reduce the risk of similar events happening again.

Staff recorded accidents and incidents, including episodes of distress, on the electronic system, graded by risk and reviewed, with follow‑up actions documented and shared in staff meetings and supervision. Staff told us they felt able to discuss challenging situations openly with the registered manager and valued debriefs after difficult incidents. One staff member said, “We look at what happened and what we could do differently next time, so things don’t escalate.”

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

People had detailed support plans, health action plans and hospital passports that brought together information about their physical and mental health, communication, and day‑to‑day support. Staff worked closely with specialists such as psychology, positive behaviour support, speech and language therapy and community mental health teams to plan and review care.

Transitions into and within the service were carefully managed; for example, 1 person and their relative described a planned move from another service as “really smooth”, with trial visits and involvement in choosing their room and recognition of their routines. Relatives told us they were kept informed and worked “in partnership” with the registered manager to agree changes when people’s needs or risks increased.

The provider worked with people and 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, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

Staff had safeguarding training, understood different types of abuse and were clear about how to report concerns both within the organisation and to external agencies. The service had safeguarding policies, including clear guidance on when to raise concerns with local authorities. Care plans described personal risks, for example online safety, financial exploitation and vulnerability in the community, and set out agreed safeguards such as staff support, regular “check‑in” phone calls and supervised internet access.

Restrictions, such as support with money or access to sharp objects, were assessed, time‑limited and reviewed to make sure they remained proportionate and the least restrictive option. Staff and relatives told us they felt people were safe. One relative commented, “People are definitely safe there. Their safety is constantly under review as it should be.” Records showed staff made appropriate referrals and follow‑up when safety concerns were identified.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care that was safe and supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were detailed and person‑centred, setting out people’s strengths, what they could do independently and where they wanted staff support, for example with finances, medicines or travelling alone. Positive behaviour support plans described triggers, early warning signs and strategies people found helpful, such as having time in a quiet space, going for a walk or talking through worries. These plans emphasised reducing restrictive practices and using medicines as a last resort.

People and relatives told us risks were balanced with independence. One relative described how staff supported their family member to go out, enjoy activities and manage money safely so they could remain as independent as possible. Staff could explain how they used risk plans in day‑to‑day practice and gave examples of adapting support when people’s needs changed. For example, “[Person] can hit out sometimes… We have been trained in avoidance and re-direction, and if you re-direct them they are usually fine. You just take them out of the situation that is overstimulating them. You are just reassuring them at the same time and being gentle but firm as they respond to people talking matter of factly, instead of asking if they are ok.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment and made sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Environmental safety checks covered areas such as fire safety, gas and electrical installations, water systems and equipment maintenance. The service had personal emergency evacuation plans for each person and considered individual mobility, health needs and behaviours that might affect how they left the building in an emergency.

The home was being improved and modernised; people and staff told us they liked the new flooring, colours and planned garden redevelopment, and individuals were involved in choosing décor for their bedrooms and communal areas. Where building issues were identified, such as windows needing replacement, the registered manager raised these with the provider and recorded actions taken. People and relatives said the home felt homely and safe, and staff supported people to keep their rooms clean and tidy while promoting their independence in household tasks.

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

A training matrix showed high completion rates for mandatory and specialist training, including positive behaviour support, mental health, safeguarding, infection prevention and control and learning disability and autism training. Staff received additional training when necessary to ensure they were able to meet each person’s individual needs. As 1 staff member explained, “If there are any areas where people need help, the manager will put on extra training.”

Staff described thorough inductions with time to read care plans, shadow experienced colleagues and build relationships with people before working independently. Ongoing competency checks covered medicines, moving and handling and other key tasks.

Recruitment files showed the provider conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started working at the service. This included identity, references and enhanced criminal record checks to ensure staff were suitable to be working with vulnerable people. Staff told us they felt very well supported by the registered manager and senior team, with regular supervision and team meetings, and described the home as “a family” and “one of the best places I’ve worked.” People and relatives said there were enough staff who knew them well and responded when they needed support.

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.

The service had clear cleaning schedules, weekly deep cleans of bedrooms and safe systems in the laundry, including colour‑coded equipment and a secure storage area for cleaning products. Staff had infection prevention and control training and could describe good hand hygiene, use of personal protective equipment and how they reduced cross‑infection when supporting people with personal care or when someone was unwell. We saw the service had handwashing facilities and appropriate waste disposal systems.

Records showed staff conducted regular audits of infection control practice and the environment, with actions followed up. Staff told us they encouraged people to wash their hands before meals and after using the toilet. One staff member described how they supported people to keep shared areas and their own rooms clean while still promoting independence.

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

Medicines administration records, protocols for medicines taken when required and individual care plans set out clearly how each person preferred to take their medicines and what support they needed. Staff received face‑to‑face and online medicines training, with regular competency assessments and practical observations. Weekly medicines audits and incident reviews were used to identify and correct errors, such as missed signatures or recording issues. For some people, staff supported self‑administration of medicines with risk assessments and regular checks so people could remain independent safely.

The service followed a clear approach to reducing unnecessary medicines, especially those used for supporting people when distressed and agitated. Alternative strategies were used before giving “as required” medicines, in line with best practice for people with learning disabilities and autistic people. Relatives and staff said medicines were well managed and that health professionals were involved when changes were needed.