You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 October 2017

Westerfield House provides accommodation, care and support for up to 31 older people. Some people were living with dementia. There were 23 people living in the service when we carried out an unannounced inspection on 23 August 2017. This was the first comprehensive ratings inspection of this service.

A registered manager was in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons.’ Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People received care and support that was personalised to them in line with their individual needs and wishes. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and interacted with them in a caring, compassionate and professional manner. They were knowledgeable about people’s choices, views and preferences. The atmosphere in the service was friendly and welcoming.

People were safe and staff knew what actions to take to protect them from abuse. The provider had processes in place to identify and manage risk. Regular assessments had been carried out and care records were in place which reflected individual needs and preferences.

Recruitment checks on staff were carried out with sufficient numbers employed who had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines safely and medicines were managed in line with the provider’s policy and procedures. Clear records were maintained and medicines were stored safely.

People were encouraged to attend appointments with relevant professionals to maintain their health and well-being. Where people required assistance with their dietary needs there were systems in place to provide this support safely.

People and or their representatives, where appropriate, were involved in making decisions about their care and support arrangements. As a result people received care and support which was planned and delivered to meet their specific needs. Staff listened to people and acted on what they said.

We found that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were encouraged to maintain relationships that mattered to them such as family, community and other social links. They were supported to pursue their hobbies and to participate in activities of their choice. This protected people from the risks of social isolation and loneliness.

There was a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to voice their concerns if they were unhappy with the care they received. People’s feedback was valued and acted on. There was visible leadership within the service and a clear management structure. The service had a quality assurance system with identified shortfalls addressed promptly which helped the service to continually improve.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 October 2017

The service was safe.

Systems were in place to help protect people from the risk of abuse and harm. Staff knew how to recognise and report concerns and were confident to do so.

The likelihood of harm had been reduced because risks had been assessed and guidance and training provided to staff on how to manage risks and keep people safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff who had been recruited safely and who had the skills to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 October 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to meet people’s individual needs. The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 was understood by staff and appropriately implemented.

People told us they were asked for their consent before any care, treatment and/or support was provided.

People were supported to maintain good health and had access to appropriate services which ensured they received ongoing healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 October 2017

The service was caring.

Staff knew people who used the service well, respected their preferences and treated them with dignity and respect. People’s independence was promoted and respected.

People were listened to and their views valued when making decisions which affected them.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the effective relationships that they had with the management and the staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 October 2017

The service was responsive

People’s care and support needs were regularly assessed and reviewed. Where changes to their needs and preferences were identified these were respected and acted upon.

People were able to pursue their hobbies and to participate in activities of their choice including accessing the wider community on planned trips.

People's concerns and complaints were investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 October 2017

The service was well-led.

There was an open and transparent culture at the service. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to contribute to decisions to improve and develop the service.

Staff were encouraged and supported by the management team and were clear on their roles and responsibilities.

Effective systems and procedures had been implemented to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.