We carried out a review of the data available to us about Westerfield House Care Ltd on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Westerfield House Care Ltd, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The service was clean, hygienic and free of unpleasant odours throughout.
¿ Staff had received relevant training in infection control and prevention and had their competencies assessed by the management team in this area.
¿ There was sufficient supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE), with designated stations in the service for staff to access. Staff were observed wearing PPE appropriately in line with national guidance.
¿ Individual risk assessments had been conducted in consultation with people who used the service and or their representatives. These were regularly reviewed.
¿ Risks to staff in relation to their health, safety and well-being had been assessed and were monitored. Where individual risks had been identified, control measures had been implemented to mitigate against the risk.
¿ The environment was well organised and had been adapted to support social distancing.
¿ The provider had appropriate infection control policies and procedures in place. These had been developed in line with current government guidance and fully implemented in the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
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.