Westside Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care.

This service scored 61 (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 did not always ensure care was person-centred, as care plans lacked sufficient detail about people’s preferences, personal histories and what was important to them, meaning care was not always reflective of their individual wishes or needs.

Care plans were in place and most were regularly reviewed, however they could be further developed to include more information on people’s likes, dislikes and preferences and to reflect their life history.

Care was coordinated and continuous. Care records reflected support from relatives and other services.

Staff received appropriate induction to support the provision of care and rotas showed continuity of care. A relative said, “There are still some staff from when [my family member] first came here.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People we spoke with did not know the names of any staff and some people said that staff names were too long to read on their name badges. No service user guide was in place. The manager told us they would be putting one in place.

Care plans provided guidance for staff on how to communicate with people including those with diverse needs. Staff used a communication board to communicate with a person who had additional communication needs.

An accessible information standard policy was in place. Information was available in different formats on request.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

There was limited evidence of people being involved in reviews of their care. Some care plans showed people’s views were considered but this was not consistent.

Meetings had not recently taken place for people who used services; however, relatives’ meetings had. Minutes were taken of these meetings. We also saw the results of a survey which was largely positive.

People said they felt able to raise concerns. No people who used services or relatives reported feeling unable to speak up. A relative said, “Staff listen. They don’t talk over you or cut you short.” A staff member said, “If there are any concerns raised the manager deals with them quickly.”

Complaints guidance was available to people who used the service and their families and an accessible information policy was in place. A Complaints policy was in place and complaints processes were in place. We reviewed recent complaints and they had been managed appropriately.

People were supported to access the care and support they needed. Arrangements were in place for access to management out of hours.

Care plans considered people’s needs and any adjustments that could be made to ensure they had equal access to services which included how their mobility needs could be met.

Staff told us they were committed to ensuring everyone received equal and fair support and staff completed training in this area. A policy was also in place.

People experienced fair and equitable care.

Policies were in place and staff completed training in this area.

Care plans evidenced how people’s disabilities were considered, where appropriate, and support provided, for example, with mobility or additional communication needs.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Care plans were in place and were clear whether people wished to receive emergency care, however, they required further development to ensure they reflected people’s personalised wishes for care in the future. Not all staff had completed specialist end of life care training.

Information regarding end of life care was displayed in the corridor and an end of life care policy was in place.