The Westbury 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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

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

People and their relatives shared that information was gathered by the registered manager before they moved into the service. The registered manager explained how they completed initial assessments for people and then developed more comprehensive support plans as they got to know people. One relative said the process had been smooth stating the registered manager was “very approachable, helpful, and went through all details for [person]. They told me how they would proceed, described running of care home. It was a very good handover.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider planned support with people and ensured they reviewed and updated care plans as required. Leaders demonstrated how they ensured care plans were reflective of people’s current needs. Leaders had involved appropriate professionals when people needed specialist support from. For example, speech and language therapists and neurology. We saw appropriate monitoring of people was completed when they had additional health needs such as weight management.

Relatives told us they had been consulted on the support needs of people when they moved into the service.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked with a range of different health professionals some of whom had been visiting the service for several years. External professionals told us leaders and staff would seek them out to see whether the support they were giving people was helping them to make progress in their recovery. This was seen by external professionals as particularly important for people staying in the home as they recovered from ill health, but who wanted to return to their own home. External professionals told us staff were always keen to ensure people got the support they needed to be able to regain their independence.

The provider 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.

We saw people engaging in a group keep fit session lead by an activity’s coordinator. Records demonstrated that people who could not leave their rooms had focussed engagement from the activity coordinator in their rooms.

People were supported to access medical services, a doctor made twice weekly calls to the registered manager to discuss the needs of people. We were told by 1 person that they had had paramedics from the local doctor’s surgery visit to attend them on 2 occasions in the last few months.

Some relatives told us the food was often served when it was no longer hot and that people had the same meals each week. The provider shared they had identified some issues with food and were moving to an external caterer to provide a bigger selection of meals for people.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We saw regular monitoring of people’s outcomes via an internal system the provider had developed. The registered manager had oversight of such things as support with repositioning and weight loss/gain which meant they could identify issues or themes and trends.

Staff recorded daily engagement on care notes; however, these were task based and did not contain information on other aspects of people’s day. We discussed this with leaders who told us they were addressing the quality of the daily notes.

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

The provider was ensuring they were supporting people who lacked capacity to give consent to care and treatment in line with the MCA 2005 and had applied for DoLS where required. Care plans demonstrated leaders had discussed consent to care and treatment with people who did have the capacity to make decisions relating to their support.

Staff could describe what steps they took to gain consent before supporting people. People confirmed staff would check with them before providing them with care and support.