Westbury Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

At the previous inspection we found that the service was not ensuring people were always safeguarded appropriately. At this inspection we found the provider had implemented further training for leaders to ensure they understood safe support. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that people were supported in line with current guidance in relation to mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was generally safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

At the previous inspection we found shortfalls which put people at risk of harm. At this inspection we found the provider and leaders had addressed these issues. Staff had been given further training relating to managing risks including falls risks and choking risks. Monitoring that had been missing for fluid intake, bowels, skin and choking risks was now in place. We saw records were being appropriately completed. Leaders had sought support from their doctor’s surgery to ensure their monitoring was effective.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

At the previous inspection we found there were not enough staff to support people in a timely way. At this inspection we saw there were more staff available., During lunch time the dining room was well staffed, and people’s needs were responded to quickly. People we spoke with said that generally staff were responsive to their requests for help. However, occasionally they had to wait longer than normal for staff to come. We reviewed staffing levels on the first day of the inspection and identified that there was not always enough staff during the night.. We feedback our concerns to the registered manager and by our second visit the number of night staff supporting people overnight had been increased to safer levels.

Staff regularly attended training both remotely and face to face. Leaders and senior staff had attended specific training to increase their skills. The provider had introduced dementia training. A dementia champion had been appointed to ensure all staff understood clearly how to support people with dementia.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in the planning around the administration of medicines.

We saw that people who had creams applied did not always have body maps to show staff where cream should go. (Body maps are used to ensure staff can demonstrate that creams have been applied to the correct areas of a person’s skin). Neither did everyone have a risk assessment in place for petroleum- based creams. This put people at risk of avoidable harm as paraffin based emollients are susceptible to fire in certain circumstances. We discussed this with the registered manager at the end of the first day of inspection and they ensured both the body maps and risk assessments were in place by the second day of inspection.

Leaders had addressed several issues with medicine management. Medicines were now stored safely, and storage temperatures were being recorded. Medicines were being ordered in a timely way.