Westleigh House

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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.

Learning from incidents, events and audits was communicated to staff in meetings and on a one-to-one basis.

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

Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people received continuity of care when receiving support from other services. At the time of the visit the registered manager was liaising with hospital staff to make sure a person’s wishes were fully known. This helped to ensure that people’s known wishes were always considered when planning care and support.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People had access to others outside of the service with whom they could raise concerns about their safety. For example, independent advocates, other professionals, family and friends.

People appeared comfortable and relaxed with the staff who supported them. Relatives felt people were safe at the home. One relative said, “They are more than safe. I am very impressed with them.”

Staff knew how to recognise and report their concerns and told us they would be comfortable to raise any issues with the registered manager.

The provider had made appropriate applications for people to be legally deprived of their liberty where they required this level of support to keep them safe.

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

Risk assessments were carried out to make sure people received care and support safely. Risk assessments seen included the use of specific equipment, such as bedrails, and guidance for how to minimise pressure damage. Relatives spoken with were aware of risk assessments in place.

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

People lived in a home which was well maintained. Regular health and safety checks were carried out in house and by outside contractors. This included fire safety checks, water checks and servicing of all lifting equipment. We were informed by the provider that some internal refurbishment, including replacement of an assisted bath, was planned for the home in the coming year.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. There was quality training which supported staff to meet the needs of people with a learning disability or autistic people.

Staff told us there was usually enough staff to meet people’s physical and emotional needs. Staff all said how well they worked as a team.

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.

All areas of the home were clean and odour free. One relative told us, “Their room is clean and spotless.” Staff received training in infection prevention and control and had access to personal protective equipment.

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

People received their medicines safely from staff who had received specific training and had their competency to carry out the task assessed. Medicines were safely stored and recorded when administered or refused. This enabled the effectiveness of medicines to be monitored.

Some people were prescribed medicines, such as pain relief, on an ‘as required’ basis. There were individual protocols in place which gave staff details about how each person may express the need for these medicines.