22 August 2014
During a routine inspection
On the day of the inspection we talked with seven people living at Westfield House. We spoke with relatives of four people. We talked with nine staff and looked at records. We spoke with a GP and two nurses who visited the home on a regular basis. Some people who lived at Westfield House were unable to speak with us due to frailty or a dementia type illness but we spent time in communal areas observing interactions with staff and looking at the way in which people were supported. Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff and people we spoke with told us that they felt safe. Staff had received training in safeguarding and understood how to safeguard the people they supported. Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve. People were cared for in a service that was safe, clean and hygienic. Risk assessments were in place in individual support plans in relation to activities of daily living. Staff had undertaken training to ensure that they had developed skills to provide the care and support for people living at Westfield House.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt that their needs were met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and they knew them well. Where it was possible, people's health and care needs were assessed with them and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Staff spoke with pride about the progress that some individual people had made whilst they had been living at Westfield House. Relatives we spoke with were able to describe specific benefits to the health and wellbeing of their relatives and the impact that this had had on their daily life. Staffing levels were reviewed to take account of changing needs and dependency levels. One person we spoke with told us, "I'm happy enough, I've a nice bedroom and the staff are very nice without being pushy."
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff were patient and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were supported to be as independent as possible. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, these were addressed. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with their wishes. One relative told us, "I've never heard them raise their voice, the nurses are wonderful, they really are. They've never given me the impression they're too busy to talk to me."
Is the service responsive?
People were referred to health care professionals as necessary and staff ensured that the appropriate support was provided in relation to changing needs. Special dietary needs were catered for and staff had received appropriate training to enable them to support people with different nutritional requirements.
Some people were involved in social activities inside and outside the service. The home supported people to take part in activities within the community which included visiting places of interest and shopping. Where people were unable to go out or remained in their rooms, staff spent time talking with them and ensured that they had access to television, radio or newspapers if that was what they enjoyed. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Two people we spoke with told us that they felt that they could talk with any of the staff if they had a concern or were worried about anything. Two relatives told us that they had raised issues with the staff and manager and these had been addressed to their satisfaction.
Is the service well-led?
Staff and relatives commented on the impact that the manager had on the quality and development of the service. One person said that the manager was a good communicator and was very approachable. The service worked well with other agencies to ensure that people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system which included planned audits. People who lived in the service, staff and relatives were asked for their views. Any identified shortfalls were addressed promptly and as a result the service was constantly improving. When we spoke with visiting health care professionals they told us that they believed that the service was well run and was a positive place for people to live. Staff told us that they felt well supported by the manager and spoke positively about the changes that they had seen since the manager had been appointed.