Westbourne House

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 64 (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. Improvements were required to ensure people were supported based on their individualised wishes. An activities coordinator had recently been introduced, and this had led to some improvements, with activities such as baking, arts and crafts, shopping and meals out. However, activities and stimulation were not consistent. We observed long periods where people were not engaged in meaningful activity, and records showed that for some people this had continued for several days. A relative said, “It would be nice to see [name] get involved in arts and crafts to keep her occupied and for something to do during the day I have never seen take part in any activities. [Name] is also not encouraged to use the garden and take regular exercise which would be good for their mobility and fresh air."

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Records showed staff worked with professionals such as district nurses, opticians and mental health teams to meet people’s needs. However, care records did not always contain robust assessments or clear guidance for staff on people’s health needs and associated risks, which meant staff did not have the information needed to provide consistent and safe care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. At the time of our assessment no one used any specific communication tools or required information in tailored formats. People had detailed communication care plans in place, which gave staff guidance about how to effectively communicate with them. Information was available to people in communal areas about how they could receive accessible information, and some people had advocates in place to assist them to make decisions.

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. Staff knew people well and people told us staff listened to them and treat them well. A person told us, “I get on well with all the staff they really listen to you if you are struggling, I find the staff kind and caring.” A staff board was in place to inform people which staff were on duty. People were involved in regular meetings and could raise concerns or suggestions. At the time of our assessment there had been no formal complaints raised. The provider understood their responsibilities to investigate and respond to complaints, should they arise.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff worked closely with a range of external professionals, including mental health teams, opticians and GPs. The service had a weekly ward round in place with a nurse practitioner and records evidenced referrals to professionals were made where required, including to emergency services and speech and language therapy teams.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People had limited access to safe outdoor space and meaningful daily stimulation, which reduced their quality of life and social inclusion. There was only a small patio area available, and garden areas were not maintained for safe use. While some people accessed the community independently or attended day centres, others had few opportunities for outings. People did have personal items such as games, music, clothes and dolls, but these did not replace the lack of consistent activities or community involvement.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future. At the time of our assessment no one using the service was receiving end of life care. People had future goals and outcomes in their care records and people had advanced decisions about their care in place, such as decisions not to attempt resuscitation.