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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.
 

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 in relation to the quality of records to ensure accurate and up to date information was available to support staff to care for people. People were able to come and go into the local community as and when they wished. Although some activities were taking place within the service, not everyone felt there was enough stimulation in the home. A person told us, “We sit all day, there’s not much to do, my brain needs to work, but we sit all day with little to do.”

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. The service had not addressed ongoing maintenance issues within the garden area. As a result, people did not have access to an outdoor environment that was fully accessible or well maintained. We raised this concern at our previous assessment, but the required improvements had not been made, and the issue remained at this assessment. We found that professionals were not always consulted in a timely manner in relation to risks associated with people’s care and audits did not always identified risks with medicines management.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The provider made efforts to ensure people were informed of the day to day running of the service. Signage around the building ensured that people knew who was supporting them that day, what was happening in the service and what was on the menu. The service had provided signs to help 1 person find their bedroom after they moved rooms. This helped reduce confusion and supported the person to move around the home independently.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. People told us they found staff caring and approachable. The service sent out annual feedback questionnaires to people, relatives and professionals. People and relatives knew who the manager was and understood how to make a complaint if they needed to do so.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We could not be assured people had equal access to advice and support from relevant healthcare professionals when they needed it. Records showed staff contacted professionals, including speech and language therapists and GPs, in some circumstances and recorded the advice received. However, records also showed concerns about people's wellbeing were not always shared with relevant professionals promptly. This meant some people may have experienced delays in accessing the support needed to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen 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. Due to the concerns identified during this assessment in relation to safe care and treatment we could not be assured that outcomes for people were as positive as they could be. Risks were not always proactively identified or addressed, and we identified issues with the safe administration of medicines.

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. At the time of the assessment no one was receiving end of life care however people had the opportunity to discuss their future wishes. The provider had discussed with people their future goals and people were involved in planning future trips out form the service.