Westerley Care Home

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 changed to good: This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their families were involved in care planning. People’s relatives had access to their family member’s records via a portal which showed them what the person had been doing, whether they had eaten etc.

People’s care plans were personalised to reflect their needs and preferences. We saw ‘this is me’ boards in people’s rooms which included information such as the person’s interests, previous occupation and hobbies to support engagement.

The business manager told us they encourage families to bring in a picture of the person’s lounge at home as well as some belongings to help the person make their environment as familiar as possible.

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were supported to access other services as required and staff recorded details of health appointments in their records. A person told us, “Yes, I feel like I have what I need. They really look after you – I have had my [procedure] done that they organised.”

A professional told us, “If a patient requires an antibiotic more urgently than the standard pharmacy delivery time, the care home arranges collection at a local chemist so as not to delay care.”

The registered manager supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The activity planner included pictures of the activities available, and meals were plated up for care workers to show people to help them choose.

People’s communication needs were included in their care plans. They stated whether people were able to communicate verbally and any sensory needs, such as wearing hearing aids or glasses.

The registered manager made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

The registered manager had a complaints policy, and we saw information for how to make a complaint was displayed in communal areas. At the time of our inspection there had been 5 complaints which had been reviewed and action taken.

The registered manager carried out a survey for feedback and held resident/relative meetings so they could share their views about the quality of the service.

People and their relatives confirmed they were kept informed and were able to raise concerns. A person said, “You can talk to them anytime about anything going on – if I have a complaint I will talk to the management.” A relative said, “Yes, they keep me updated, we have an app so we can see what is going on… “They do ask for feedback with surveys, they ask for our input with care plans.”

The registered manager made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had call bells in their rooms to alert staff if they needed help. Where people were unable to use the call bells, regular checks were in place. The premises were fully accessible and there was lift access to all floors.

The registered manager had policies to ensure compliance with human rights requirements. This included consideration of the needs of people with protected characteristics.

The registered manager had not always ensured people’s care was tailored to support an equal experience.

Most people at the home were living with dementia. This meant the environment was designed to meet their needs in the way it was decorated and the activities available. However, we found this was not conducive to the wellbeing of the few people who were not living with dementia. Those who were not living with dementia told us they struggled to socialise with others in the home. A person told us, “It is very difficult because I don’t have dementia, and I am in a home with all [people living with dementia].” Another person said, “It is very boring, I have nothing to do really.” This meant the registered manager did not always meet people’s social needs.

People’s support plans for care at the end of their life lacked detail. Staff had not received training in end-of-life care. This meant that there was a risk people’s end of life care needs may not have been appropriately assessed and addressed should they develop end of life care needs. However, a professional told us, “Patients are treated with dignity and respect and at end of life looked after with the same care and attention.” We saw a compliment to the service from a relative who said, “Thank you so much for looking after and providing great care to our [relative]…Thank you also for allowing [them] to pass away peacefully in [their] room where [they] felt safe and comfortable surrounded by [their] things and the people [they] knew.”