We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Westbury Care Home 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 The Westbury Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The Westbury Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 38 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 44 people.
The home was purpose built and accommodated people in one building. People’s rooms were on the ground and first floor and there was a communal lounge and adjoining dining room. In addition to long term care, the home provided intermediate care. This type of care aims to enable people to regain their independence and return home, following acute ill health or surgery.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
There were enough staff to support people safely. The home was calm, and staff had time with people. Risks were identified and safely managed. Staff were aware of the responsibilities to identify and report potential abuse. Systems were in place to prevent and control infection and the home was clean. People’s medicines were safely managed. There was an open culture with a focus on learning if things went wrong.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People had enough to eat and drink. Effective monitoring was in place to ensure this. People’s needs were assessed, and a range of healthcare services were accessed to help them remain healthy. The environment was warm, comfortable and met people’s needs. People were encouraged to personalise their room. Staff felt supported and received a range of training to help them do their job well.
People were treated well, and systems were in place to ensure this. There was an established staff team and staff knew people well. People were complimentary about the staff and there were many positive interactions. People were encouraged to direct their care and their privacy and dignity was promoted.
People were happy with the support they received and had a detailed care plan in place. This showed how people liked their care to be delivered and what was important to them. There was a range of social activity for people to join in with if they wanted to. The home had a minibus and external activities were being developed. Staff were passionate about providing good end of life care. Discussions were being held with people about this. There was an open approach to complaints, and systems were in place to enable people to raise a concern easily.
People benefitted from clear leadership and a caring ethos. This was adopted throughout the staff team, with kindness being a key factor. There was positive feedback about the registered manager and they had a visible presence in the home. They regularly worked with people, and alongside staff. There was a comprehensive auditing system, which assessed the quality and safety of the service. There was a clear focus on development and networking took place.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 03 June 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
This inspection was over two days which took place on 10 and 11 May 2017. The visit on the 10 May was unannounced and the manager was aware of the second visit on 11 May 2017.
People told us they felt safe living at the home and staff made them feel secure. Members of staff were knowledgeable about the safeguarding of vulnerable adults from abuse procedures. They were able to identify the types of abuse and understood their responsibility in reporting abuse.
Risks were managed appropriately. Risks assessments on how staff were to minimise risk were in place, for example in ensuring people were supported to use their mobility equipment. Incidents and accidents were reported by staff and analysed to prevent any reoccurrence. The manager said where accidents and incidents were reported the quality assurance team shared learning from analysis of trends and patterns.
Medicines were administered and managed safely. Protocols for when required medicines (PRN) were in place for all PRN medicines and detailed how and when the medicine was to be taken.
People were involved in the planning of their care. Care plans were detailed on how staff were to deliver care and treatment in people’s preferred manner. People’s changing needs were assessed and care plans were amended accordingly. People told us the staff were kind and caring. The staff understood the importance of developing relationships with people. We saw staff communicating with people in a way they understood. When people needed support from staff we observed a discreet approach was used to offer assistance.
Staff were knowledgeable around the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and care and support was delivered in line with the Act.
People were supported to make day to day decisions such as menu choices, activities and choice of clothing. We saw good examples of staff supporting people to make choices, for example at lunch time or in how people wanted to spend their time.
Staffing levels were calculated according to people’s needs and this was regularly reviewed.
Staff received support through supervision with their line manager and team meetings where they could share good practice and discuss any day to day issues. Staff told us they received appropriate training and support to do their job well.
Quality assurance systems were in place. A programme of audits had taken place. Action plans on the areas for improvement were in place and where actions were on-going the timescale was amended.