Westbourne House

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.
 

This service scored 54 (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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s care plans contained some person-centred information about people’s likes and dislikes. However, sufficient detail was not always in place to support staff to support people effectively. For example, an epilepsy care plan did not include sufficient detail about how to identify and respond to seizures.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. We could not be assured that people’s care and treatment was always safe due to issues identified in relation to medicines management, record keeping and safe environments. Some records had not been reviewed in line with the service's own policies. This meant the provider could not be assured information remained accurate and up to date to support people's care and safety. In addition, concerns were not always escalated to relevant professionals when required, which meant there was a risk changes in people's needs or potential risks were not identified and responded to promptly.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services. Professionals we spoke to were complimentary about working with the service and staff team. However, we found the provider had been ineffective at identifying risks to people. Audits had not identified several medication errors, and where the provider had identified concerns relating to self-administration of medicines this information had not been communicated to the correct professionals in a timely manner.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. The provider had not proactively identified and managed risks associated with people's care and treatment. We found concerns were not always shared with relevant partner agencies when required. This meant opportunities to seek timely advice, intervention or support could be missed, and we could not be assured people were supported to achieve the best possible health outcomes.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The provider did not consistently monitor outcomes for people. While we did find evidence of some people being supported to manage and overcome difficulties, we also found evidence of concerns for some people not being identified or addressed proactively.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider understood the need to seek consent to care and treatment. People had choice and control in their day to day lives and were free to pursue interests relevant to them and to access the local community when they wanted to.