Westbury Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion, and promoted their rights to privacy, choice and independence. Feedback about staff was positive and showed established relationships had been built. However, people’s immediate care needs were not always met. This included lack of appropriate support at mealtimes and inconsistent approaches when supporting people with their distress. There were systems to ensure staff were well supported and kept up to date with information they needed to know.

This service scored 70 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and
respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People, relatives and health care professionals were complimentary about the staff. Specific comments included, “Carers genuinely care about their residents” and “Regular carers go above and beyond.” However, one relative told us professionalism could be improved upon, as staff sometimes talked about people in public spaces. This did not promote people’s dignity. Leaders told us this had been brought to their attention and addressed with the staff involved.

There was a relaxed atmosphere at the service and staff engaged with people well. They spoke in a friendly way and addressed people using their name. Some staff crouched down to talk to people at eye level. One staff held a person’s hand and showed understanding and empathy when talking to them. The person responded to this well.

We saw staff promoting people’s dignity by knocking on their bedroom doors before entering. One staff member adjusted a person’s clothing to maintain their dignity whilst they were being assisted to move using the hoist.

Leaders told us values were an integral part of all interactions and initially discussed during induction. Records showed staff had completed Dignity in Care training, which formed part of the provider’s mandatory staff training programme.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and
treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Leaders told us care planning was used to ensure people’s individuality was promoted. They said the ‘Resident of the Day’ initiative was also used to ensure a holistic approach to the person’s care. They said any changes the person wanted would be discussed and addressed.

Activity staff told us they were aware of people’s preferences and interests. This included whether they liked individual time or group activities and what type of activity they preferred Staff told us they had developed a ‘wish tree’ and held discussions about a person’s bucket list. As a result of this, one person had visited a car museum, and another had eaten fish and chips on the seafront.

Staff told us it was important for everyone to consider the service was their home. One staff member told us they knew people well, which meant they knew who they could be ‘cheeky with and have a laugh’. Another staff member however, said they thought individualised care could be improved upon by asking people for their meal choices nearer the time. They said this was because people were currently asked in the morning and had forgotten by lunchtime.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had
choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People told us choice and independence were promoted. They said they had a choice of food and drink and could spend their day as they wished. One person said they did not want to join in with any of the activities on offer, and there was no pressure from staff to do so.

People were able to have visitors in the privacy of their own room at any time.

Staff confirmed they promoted choice and independence within all interactions. This included enabling people to do as much as they could for themselves and offering choices during all interventions.

Care records provided staff with information about how best to support the person with their independence. This included giving the person a soapy flannel so they could wash themselves independently.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff did not demonstrate a consistent, positive approach when supporting a person with their distress. For example, one staff member told the person their relative was at work, whilst another said they always left the person to calm down on their own, as it was pointless arguing with someone living with dementia. Both responses were unsuccessful and demonstrated a lack of understanding about the person’s immediate care needs.

Care planning information did not provide staff with any strategies to help support the person whilst distressed. This did not ensure the person was well supported. Another care plan stated a person ‘walked for hours’ and did not sleep well at night. The information did not provide staff with guidance about how best to support the person, or what support they had given. This increased the risk of ineffective care.

The lunch time experience on the first floor did not support people’s immediate needs. People were not served in a timely manner and not everyone on a table was served at the same time. This meant some people became frustrated and displayed this by shouting. One person repeatedly mixed their food together, but did not eat anything. Staff did not revisit the table to prompt the person or offer an alternative. We alerted a staff member, who then asked the person if they wanted anything else. Another staff member told us this was usual behaviour and the person preferred finger foods or snacks such as biscuits in their room. Information to help staff support the person with good nutrition, was not detailed in their care plan.

Staff initially gave people a verbal choice of what they wanted to eat, but this was unsuccessful for some. The staff member then showed each person the choice of meal, so they were able to visually chose. This was successful and people were able to make an informed choice. Staff could not find the picture cards, they said they usually used. This did not show a consistent approach to menu selection was followed, which met people’s needs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to deliver person-centred care.

Staff had access to a confidential support line as needed and staff recognition awards were given each month. Staff told us they could talk to leaders at any time and there was an ‘open door’ approach. They said leaders were flexible and adjusted their role or working hours if needed in response to an illness, pregnancy or other life event.

There were daily heads of department meetings, to discuss key aspects of people’s needs and events of the day. This information was then disseminated to the rest of the team which kept everyone up to date with what they needed to know. There were regular staff meetings, reflective practice sessions and formal supervision with line managers.

Staff told us said the change of company ownership and introduction of the electronic systems had been difficult at times, but morale was improving. They said they felt supported by leaders, and additional training had been implemented to improve knowledge.