Westerfield House Care Ltd

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 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’s needs were assessed, which were used to inform care plans and risk assessments, which were kept under review. As well as routine reviews of people’s care plans and risk assessments, where changes were identified by staff, the person or their representatives, changes were promptly made.

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.

People’s views were listened to about the care they required, and this was incorporated into care plans, for example, people’s preferences. People’s relatives, where appropriate, were also asked for their views about the service provided.

People’s needs and risks were assessed in relation to nutrition and hydration. People’s care plans relating to their dietary needs were provided to the catering staff to reduce the risks of their needs not being met. Drinks were accessible to people and offered by staff. A person said, “[Staff] are always offering drinks and make sure I have drinks when I am in my room.” When low intake was noted, for example by the management team monitoring fluid records, staff were advised to provide further encouragement to drink. Records and discussion with the catering staff confirmed training had been provided by external professionals on dietary needs, including textures of food, such as if people required a softer diet.

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.

The management team and staff told us how they shared positive relationships with other professionals involved in people’s care. This included the GP surgery and district nurses. A social care professional told us the provider worked well with commissioners. A member of the management team told us how important information about people was shared with others involved in their care to ensure they received a consistent service, this included if a person was admitted to hospital.

Staff told us they worked well together as a team, and they felt supported by the provider and management team.

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.

Staff made referrals to the appropriate health care professionals. Records demonstrated the outcomes to health professionals’ treatment and guidance was incorporated into care plans to make sure people received the care they required consistently.

People’s records showed they were supported to access services included dentists, opticians and chiropodists. People’s weights were kept under review and actions taken when people were at risk of losing weight, including referrals to a dietician and the provision of a fortified diet to help reach and/or maintain a healthy weight.

A group of people participated in armchair exercises; this was via an app on the television. People were smiling and singing along while they were joining in the exercise.

People told us they had access to health care professionals when needed. A person said, “The GP comes on a Thursday, regular. If you need to be seen, you just ask the staff and they’ll put you on the list.” Another person told us, “The staff put me on the doctor’s list. I had a paramedic come out from the surgery. They checked my chest and gave me antibiotics after they had spoken to the GP.”

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.

The management team told us and showed us on their electronic system how they monitored that people were receiving the care they required throughout each day, this included when people required repositioning. Where actions required had not been delivered, the management team advised the staff they needed addressing. This reduced the risks of people not receiving the care they required.

Where guidance had been received from health care professionals, this was incorporated into care plans, including any changes to people’s care required. This was monitored to ensure people were receiving the care they needed.

Injuries were monitored, including pressure injury, and examples were given to us about how the care provided by the staff and by health care professionals had contributed to the healing of pressure wounds.

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

People’s capacity to make decisions was assessed and where people required support to make decisions in their best interests this was recorded. Where people had appointed people to assist them in making decisions, documents were kept on file.

The service was working in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and where people lacked the capacity to consent Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were applied for and these were kept under review to ensure any restrictions on a person’s liberty were lawful. Staff had received training in MCA and DoLS.

People told us the staff asked for their consent before providing support, this was confirmed in our observations. People told us they were supported to make their own decision. A person said, “I’m free to choose what I want to do.”