Westerley Care Home

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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The registered manager made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care plans included detailed information about their backgrounds as well as their physical and mental health needs. Their relatives confirmed they were involved in the assessment of their family members’ needs. A relative said, “I have seen the care plan and can input.” Another relative said, “I am involved a lot as I am always there, yes they do review my [family member’s] care plan with me.”

People’s records were reviewed monthly and updated to include any changes to their needs.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs were not always met. Staff monitored people’s food and fluid intake but had not ensured those at risk of dehydration met their daily targets.

The registered manager did not maintain a protected time for meals to ensure people were not disturbed while eating, unless this was absolutely necessary. People had their medicines administered during their meals, including eye drops, and best practice would be to do this in private. There was a risk people would be disrupted from focusing on their meals and we saw this happening during our visit.

People and their relatives gave mixed feedback about the food. A person said, “The food is good – nothing fancy but that’s not me anyway – I like it.” Another person said, “The food is terrible.” However, they did say they had enough to eat and a relative said, “[Person] enjoys the food, they do present it nicely as pureed food.” The business manager told us they were working on improving the menu as they were aware some younger residents were interested in meals other than traditional British food. They also said they find out any preferences or cultural needs as part of their initial assessment and ensured assumptions were not made on people’s religion, having found people do not necessarily follow these diets strictly. Information such as people with diabetes or pureed diets was displayed in the kitchen.

Staff showed people plated meals to support them to choose the meal they wanted. Other options were available outside of the menu and a variety of snacks were available between meals. We observed staff supporting people to eat and drink at a suitable pace, offering gentle encouragement.

The registered manager worked well across teams and services to support people. They had a staff communication book and a messaging app to share information as well as at staff handover meetings.

Professionals involved with the service gave positive feedback. People’s relatives described positive relationships with managers and confirmed other services were accessed as required. A relative told us, “I can raise anything, and they follow it up straight away.” Another relative said, “They are quite quick for a doctor to come in and see [person.]” A professional told us, “Information sharing is good. They are aware of any pending referrals and do ask us to confirm that this has happened as well as following up any blood tests that have been requested.”

The registered manager supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. A professional told us, “I am aware of a patient that continues to smoke and has capacity. I am aware that it was arranged for [them] to be out in the garden when needed, though they're encouraging [them] not to smoke.”

Staff supported people to maintain a good quality of life. During our visits we observed positive interactions between staff and people and saw people engaging in activities. Some people were supported to go out. A professional told us, “In cases of decreased mobility, patients are encouraged to come out of their rooms and join the communal area.”

The registered manager monitored people’s health needs. A person said “They look after my medical needs well. [They] helped me recover from various things that went wrong.” However, we found action had not always been taken when alerts were raised regarding people’s low intake of fluids. This meant the registered manager’s monitoring processes were not always effective.

The registered manager told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff completed mental capacity assessments and where it was found a person lacked capacity to make decisions, these were made in their best interests and with the involvement of those close to them.

Staff sought consent from people before providing care. People we spoke with confirmed this. A relative said, “Yes they always talk [person] through what they are going to do.”