Westcott House Nursing 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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.

The registered manager assessed people’s needs before they moved into the service. People’s needs were assessed in-person and included a detailed assessment of their needs and preferences, including cultural, spiritual and religious considerations.

Once people moved into the service, their care was regularly reviewed. People, their relatives and professionals were involved throughout the assessment process. One relative told us, “There was as smooth a transition as possible.” An external partner commented, “In my experience, staff at Westcott House Nursing Home, work positively and collaboratively with social care services.”

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People and their relatives told us nutritional needs were generally met. However, we observed some people receiving their meals when they had become cold, some people who needed to assistance to eat were rushed, and some people were required to wait for a long time until their meals arrived. Comments from relatives included “Because of his condition he needs prompting to drink and eat and they always prompt him”, “With regard to food, she makes her choices with pictures in the morning”, “I think staff are good at [assisting to eat] but I do think more [staff] should be in the dining room” and “There is always a jug of water for [person]. Constant teas and coffees.”

During lunchtime we heard 2 people in their rooms calling out and asking for their meals repeatedly. They were asked by staff to wait until people in communal areas had received their meals. The provider accepted that this was not in line with their expectations and they immediately sought feedback from people and their relatives on how to improve the mealtime experience. They also created a mealtime protocol for staff to follow and ensured all available staff were supporting people at mealtimes daily.

Staff completed nationally recognised tools, such as Waterlow to assess people’s skin integrity, and the malnutrition universal screening tool to assess people’s risk of unplanned weight loss. However, we found that subsequently these were not consistently followed by staff, such as regular weighing of people.
The registered manager told us they ensured staff completed nationally recognised training, for example, to support the care of people with a learning disability and autistic people in line with legal requirements.

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.

People and their relatives told us staff worked well internally and with external partners. One relative told us, “They are very responsive if I have a question or concern. They are very on the ball.” Another relative commented, “There is always consistency and this drives my confidence.”

Staff knew people’s needs well and shared information appropriately. Staff completed daily handovers to communicate changes about people’s needs and what their plans were for the day. One member of staff told us, “Every morning in the handover they tell us all the things that happen that day.”

Partners told us the service worked well with them to ensure people only needed to tell their story once. An external partner told us, “They are welcoming towards external professionals, including social care staff, and communication is generally effective. The team provides relevant information promptly when requested and contributes appropriately during review meetings.”

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.

People and their relatives told us staff supported them with their healthcare needs and ensured they had access to a variety of healthcare professionals, including a regular GP round and community dental care who undertook regular visits to the service. One relative told us, “[Healthcare professionals] come to him, which is brilliant.” Another relative said, “They always call me too if the GP changes or prescribes something new.”

Staff ensured appointments were recorded in people’s care records. Healthcare professionals told us staff supported people effectively. One visiting healthcare professional told us, “I have no concerns in relation to the care they provide in the nursing home for the patients under our service.” Another professional commented, “They have a set system. They’ve got a protocol for how often they check blood sugars so I can easily review this.”

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.

People and their relatives told us staff followed healthcare professionals’ advice and instructions to monitor people’s outcomes. One relative told us in relation to monitoring specific outcomes, “They always call me every time [event] happens. I am very happy and confident that he is safer with them, than when he was at home with me.”

Healthcare professionals told us staff worked with them and followed their instructions which resulted in positive outcomes for people. A healthcare professional told us, “I have found that concerns are escalated as required, and there is a willingness to engage with other professionals to ensure residents’ needs are met.” Another healthcare professional said, “The Westcott House nursing staff work well with me; I find them responsive to patient needs and they always contact our service when they need our help.”

Records showed where people had experienced positive outcomes by staff working together and with external services. For example, where a person’s behaviour meant they were potentially no longer able to stay at Westcott House, staff worked with their next of kin and the community mental health team to develop an individualised positive behaviour support plan which meant the person was able to continue living at the service and as a result did not require further intervention.

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

Relatives told us staff sought consent from people and respected people’s decisions. One relative told us, “They get my permission and they always ask and explain to [person] as well.” Staff had undertaken relevant training and understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The registered manager also understood their responsibilities in relation to the MCA. Staff assessed people’s capacity where they had indications that the person may be lacking mental capacity. A member of staff told us, “She has got some capacity, but not full capacity. She can make her own decisions though about what she wants to eat, when she wants to wake up and what clothes she wants to wear.” Another member of staff commented, “[The MCA] is there to protect and empower individuals. If they are not able to make a decision, we have to act in their best interest.”