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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This service scored 57 (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 and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Improvements were required to people's care records to ensure they contained enough information about people's needs. People had their own decorations and personal effects in their rooms, including ornaments and photographs. One person had their own fridge, which they stored their favourite drinks in. We observed staff treating people with dignity and respect. People and relatives told us they felt listened to. Records evidenced people were involved in planning activities, including themed nights and day trips.

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. Whilst there was a small patio area for people to sit in, there was a lack of maintained and safe garden areas to enable people to access outside areas and enjoy the outdoors. This was raised as a concern at our last assessment and remained a concern at this assessment. People were supported to maintain community links and keep in touch with family and friends. The activities programme had improved since our last assessment, and people were involved in choosing future events and community outings.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. At the time of our assessment people living at the service did not have any specific or tailored communication needs. People had detailed communication care plans in place, which guided staff about how to effectively communicate with people. Menu and activity boards were in place, to inform people what was on offer each day and a staff board was in place which detailed which staff were on shift. Confidential information was stored appropriately.

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. Partners who worked with the service told us staff worked well with them. A professional said, “[Name] is happy here, they take them dancing. Staff are always responsive; they are invested and interested.” People were involved in feedback surveys and records showed people were happy with their care. People were involved in meetings in which they could raise concerns and suggestions. People had access to advocacy services and we observed 1 person receiving support from an advocate on the day of our assessment.A relative said, “Staff have called me when [name] had some health appointments.”

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records evidenced people had access to a range of external professionals, such as nurses, representatives and GPs. However, we could not be assured staff always followed their advice due to concerns we found during this assessment.

We could not be assured staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and always tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Due to concerns we found relating to people’s safe care and treatment.

People were offered a choice of activities, including in-house activities such as crafts, music and baking. Some people accessed the community independently and some were supported o go out and do their own shopping. The service celebrated key events, for example a valentine’s celebration was taking place which included decorations and dinner. People could easily access public transport, and local shops and cafes. A person said, “We do more activities now,but I prefer just watching TV.”

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, as there was alack of capacity to consent assessments in place.

At the time of our assessment no one was receiving support at the end of their life. People had future goals and outcomes in their care records and people had advanced decisions about their care in place, such as advanced decisions to refuse treatment.