Westerfield House Care Ltd

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. This included when incidents and accidents had happened. Lessons learned were documented and disseminated to staff in meetings and handover. Staff confirmed they were updated when changes were needed in practice.

There was a duty of candour policy in place, and this was understood and followed where required.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

The management team undertook needs assessments on people prior to them moving into the service to ensure their needs could be met. When emergency placements were required, the assessments were completed then the person moved in. These assessments were used to inform care plans and risk assessments. The management team shared examples of how people were supported to move from another service and information was gained from commissioners and the other service to ensure a smooth transition for people.

Records were in place to share with other professionals, for example if a person required admission to hospital. This included a profile of the person with important information about them.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff were provided with training in safeguarding and had access to the provider’s safeguarding policies and procedures, including whistleblowing. They understood their roles and responsibilities in identifying and reporting concerns of abuse.

The registered manager shared an example of the systems put in place to protect a person, following concerns from a previous placement. This demonstrated a proactive approach to safeguarding where people were kept safe.

People told us they felt safe living in the service. A person said, “I feel very safe. I’m very relaxed.” Another person said, “I’ve always felt and do feel safe here.” Another person told us how when they had not felt safe when a person had entered their bedroom, actions were taken by the staff and management, which they were satisfied with.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people were assessed and measures in place to reduce risks. These included risks associated with falls, pressure injury, nutrition and hydration, and choking. People’s choices and independence were respected to ensure people could participate in the life they chose to, such as outings in the community with family and friends, and taking their medicines independently.

Staff received training in moving and handling and their competency was assessed.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Checks were undertaken in the environment to reduce risks to people, this included fire safety, electrical, portable electrical appliances, gas, window restrictors and legionella. Mobility equipment was checked and items such as hoists and the lift were serviced as required.

A member of staff told us how checks on the safety of the environment were regularly undertaken and actions taken to reduce risks as required. Records demonstrated where staff had identified risks and the need for repairs, this was documented, as was the actions taken to address them.

Risks in the environment were being addressed and measures in place to reduce them. A risk assessment was in place for the stairs; however, we noted these were not in place for all of the people using the service, this was immediately addressed by the management team.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staffing levels were determined by people’s dependency needs, and this was kept under review by the provider and management team. Staff told us there were enough staff to meet needs, however, sickness resulted in having to get cover to ensure the planned staffing levels.

Staff received training and the opportunity to undertake qualifications relevant to their role. Staff told us if they felt they needed additional training this was discussed in their one-to-one supervisions and this was provided.

Staff told us they felt supported and worked together well as a team. Allocations were done at each handover, so staff knew what they needed to do at each shift.

People told us they felt there were enough staff to meet their needs. A person said, “Yes. I do quite well with staff.” However, a person said, “It can be iffy. Recently there’s been staff sickness.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The service was visibly clean and hygienic throughout. A schedule of routine and deep cleaning was undertaken to reduce risks. Audits and monitoring of the infection control in the service supported the management team to identify any areas that needed attention. Records showed when shortfalls were identified immediate action was taken to address them. People told us that they felt the service was clean. A person said, “The cleaners are around all the time and there’s a rota for rooms to be deep cleaned monthly.” Another person said, “Even the little things get done. It all works so well.”

Staff were provided with training in infection control, and monitoring of hand washing was undertaken. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was accessible for staff and documents were seen which showed staff were advised on the gloves off campaign and when they should be used. This was being kept under review and contributed to reducing waste and promoting effective hand hygiene.

Any infections were documented and actions taken, these were monitored, which supported the management team to identify potential outbreaks to take the necessary action to reduce risks of spreading.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medicines were securely stored and systems in place for ordering and disposing of medicines safely. Records showed people received their medicines when they needed them. Monitoring systems including audits supported the management team to identify any discrepancies and take action to keep people safe. Any errors were documented and actions taken to reduce future risks.

Staff responsible for supporting people with their medicines were trained and their competency assessed. Risks relating to people’s medicines were in place and measures to reduce them, this included for people who administered their medicines independently and people who required their medicines to be hidden when given. The required documentation was in place relating to covert administration of medicines, as well as protocols in place for medicines to be given as required (PRN).

People told us they were satisfied with how they were supported with their medicines. A person said, “I have tablets in the morning and in the evening. All taken care of.” Another person said, “After I got here the doctor came in and changed my medicines. Everything’s been fine since then.” Another person said, “Yes, all good. I’m on antibiotics at the moment for my chest.”