Westcott House Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were not always reflective of their current needs and some lacked information. For example, 1 person’s care plan contained a different individual’s name, there was insufficient information in another person’s care plan about their needs, and some care plans used outdated language to describe needs. We raised this with the registered manager and provider who acknowledged the need to further strengthen the quality of care plans to ensure they are fully person-centred, reflective of resident’s current needs, preferences, choices and life histories. They told us they had started this process by coaching the clinical team.

Other areas of care plans were detailed and contained information about people’s lives before moving into the service and included their families’ involvement. Relatives told us they had previously not been involved in care planning but that this had improved since the new registered manager was appointed and they now felt involved. Comments from relatives included, “We have just done a review, even though [person] only moved in [date of admission].”, “Been there 3 to 4 years and yes the care plans are regularly reviewed.” and “[Registered manager] is going through care plans, we had a big meeting with various agencies. It was her assessment."

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People and their relatives told us staff worked in a joined-up way to meet their needs. One relative told us, “All [aspects of care] are included and all is good.” Another relative commented, “[Person] has a relationship with them and feels safe with them.”

Staff told us they had enough time to read people’s care plans and got to know people to ensure there was continuity of care. One member of staff told us, “I check the care plans and talk to them, their family and relatives.” There was continuity in people’s care because staff were able to describe their needs and preferences to colleagues and externally. The registered manager and provider worked with other health and social care partners to coordinate people’s care in a joined-up way.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information, such as feedback surveys, was available in various formats and the registered manager told us they were able to provide other formats if these were required. For example, some people chose their lunchtime meals in the morning using pictorial aids. Whilst most people living in the service at the time of the assessment were able to follow standard formats, the provider understood their responsibilities in relation to the Accessible Information Standard. The Accessible Information Standard sets out how providers and commissioners of NHS and publicly funded adult social care services should ensure disabled people and people with impairments or sensory loss can access and understand information.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider sought feedback from people who used the service, their relatives and staff. Records showed that action was taken in response to complaints and the provider was aware of the challenges they needed to address. Relatives’ comments included, “I do a survey when I leave the home”, “I have attended [relatives’ meetings] too” and “I raised one (a complaint) recently with the manager, who reacted very well. We are always made to feel welcome.”

Staff told us there were regular staff meetings to discuss people’s care. Comments included, “We do flash meetings if the manager thinks that something is not good and the manager will take proper measure” and “We have monthly staff meetings. We also have flash meetings. We are asked for our opinions on things.”

The provider had a complaints procedure, and the registered manager told us they understood their responsibility to record, investigate and share outcomes of complaints. We saw that this was the case when the service received a complaint.

The provider generally made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. However, we identified instances where support could be provided in a timelier way.

People were supported by staff to ensure they had equal access to care and treatment when needed. However, where people were unable to mobilise or eat independently, we observed delays in accessing support from staff. The provider addressed the areas we identified but further time was required to embed the changes.

The premises and equipment were suitable for people’s needs and the provider worked with partners to provide further support where necessary and to make adjustments to the environment. The provider’s pre-admission process ensured people were able to live at the premises before agreeing to move into the service due to some of the limitations of the layout.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities to be aware of discrimination and inequalities which could have an impact on people accessing care and support.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Relatives told us that people lived in an environment free from inequalities, and that staff listened to their suggestions about tailoring support. One relative told us, “It is thoughtful and a caring home.” Another relative said, “I have always got the sense that they really want to listen.”

The registered manager understood their legal responsibilities in relation to equality and human rights, including discrimination and protected characteristics, and they had an understanding of how reasonable adjustments support equity in experience and outcomes.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People had end of life care plans in place which contained their preferences and where they would like to be supported if they wished to discuss this. Where there were advance decisions in place, records reflected this. Records included details on which families and professionals were involved in the decision-making process.