- Care home
Westbury House
Assessment report published 21 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
Westbury House is a care home registered to support up to 10 people and there were 10 people living at the service at the time of the inspection. The service is set out over two floors, plus a basement which is primarily for storage. There are bedrooms on the ground and first floor. There is a lift in place and people have access to a garden at the rear of the building. The garden had shade and shelter and space for people to sit or be more active. There was also a sensory room in the house for people to enjoy.
Who the service is for
The service supports people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people. The people living at the service were older people.
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 29 to 30 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was being provided in line with this guidance and people were being supported to lead positive and dignified lives.
People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of how to identify possible concerns and what action they needed to take to keep people safe. Staff knew how to raise concerns outside of the organisation if this was necessary. When incidents and accidents happened, staff reported these as appropriate. Action was taken to reduce the risk of incidents re-occurring. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them and they were kept informed of any changes to people’s support needs.
People’s physical and mental health needs had been risk assessed to ensure there were mitigations in place to keep people well and identify if they were becoming unwell. There was guidance for staff on how to support people to stay safe and what to do if they were becoming unwell. We did identify some discrepancies in the guidance for people’s support with constipation. However, this was addressed during the inspection, and monitoring systems were updated to prevent the concern from arising again.
There was enough staff to provide people with safe and effective support. Staff were well trained and knew how to provide support to people. Staff training was a mixture of online and face to face training. Staff told us they felt well supported by their managers and could raise issues or concerns if they needed to. Staff were recruited safely and underwent a supported probation period to ensure they were suitable for the role, and the role was right for them.
The environment was safe and suitable for people’s needs. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure the building was safe, such as gas safety checks. We did raise some concerns over the door to the basement being unlocked. However, there was a risk assessment in place regarding this, and the registered manager agreed to take action to reduce any risk further.
Most people had lived at the service for a long time. When people did move into the service, they were involved in the decision. Staff facilitated visits to the home as part of initial meetings and the assessment. This gave people the opportunity to meet each other and supported the person moving in to be involved in decision making about their future.
Staff understood how to monitor changes in people’s needs, and how to escalate these to health professionals where required. Staff were aware of and used nationally recognised best practice tools such as tools to assess risks to people from low or high weight. Staff understood and had applied the principles of STOMP (Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people). People’s medicines were safely managed. People received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Medicines were stored and disposed of safely.
People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Staff understood the principles of consent and mental capacity. We observed staff explain medication and gain consent when delivering care and treatment. People were able to easily move round the service, including people who used specialised wheelchairs.
There was a warm and friendly atmosphere at the service. The registered manager had a good oversight of staff culture and told us they guided staff to ensure people enjoyed life. The registered manager spent time on the floor working alongside staff on occasion and there were regular staff meetings which included elements of learning as well as discussions about people’s support needs. Staff were positive about communication at the service. One staff told us, “You can speak to everyone, we can share what is working and what is not. It’s good as you are always caught up and in the loop.”
There was a system of quality checks in place including a quarterly audit, undertaken by the regional operations manager on behalf of the provider. The registered manager kept up to date with current practices, through attending forums and interacting with health and social care professionals. Staff were aware of new guidance and up to date best practice such as guidance on supporting people with swallowing difficulties.
People's experience of this service
People did not communicate with us verbally during this inspection. Therefore, we gathered people’s views through observing their care and support in formal and informal ways. We observed how people integrated with staff and how they responded to staff engagement. We also spoke with people’s relatives to gain their views.
Feedback from relatives was really positive. One relative told us, “We are very pleased with how the service looks after [our relative]. [They are] always happy when we visit and when I call. The staff are very interactive with [my relative]. They seem to be well cared for. The staff are always on top of things.” Another relative said, “We find it wonderful. People are enjoying a really good quality of life. People get lots of choices all the time.”
There were good levels of engagement between staff and people. Staff were attentive to people’s needs and spoke kindly to people. Some people moved themselves about the service using specially adapted wheelchairs, where this was the case staff waited patiently for people to move themselves. One person wanted staff attention, they led staff through the service by their hand to where they needed support, staff seemed comfortable and familiar with being engaged in this way. Staff spoke with people before providing people with support. Staff were aware of what caused people to become upset and supported people in a person-centred way.
We observed people enjoy activities within the home, and going out into the community. Staff told us how they had worked to improve people’s quality of life, where different activities were offered, and responses monitored to ensure enjoyment and engagement. People living at the service were older people, staff had supported people to review their activities to ensure people could continue to go out, go on holiday and engage with the local community as they grew older and their needs changed. People were leading active and meaningful lives and were well engaged with their community. For example, some people went to a local service for older people so they could mix with other people their age outside of the service. On the day we visited some people went bowling whilst others had health appointments which they were supported to attend. Three people had recently been on holiday and other people’s holidays were being planned.
People were encouraged to maintain their independence as much as possible. People had SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound) goals in place. These goals were person centred and focused on what was important to the person. For example, one person’s goal related to maintaining their mobility. Staff were supporting another person to learn new signs so they could increase their communication. Staff reviewed these goals to ensure people were being supported to work towards them.
There was a positive focus on promoting feedback from people and ensuring people were not excluded due to their communication needs. Staff had supported people to engage in a survey. There were also meetings for people so they could express their views. Staff used pictures and objects of reference to communicate with people or people’s gestures and facial expressions. This included keeping people informed about changes undertaken in response to people’s feedback.