Westfield House

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 72 (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. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to identify trends and patterns. Where appropriate, action was taken to mitigate future risks. Staff and leaders learnt lessons from safety events and took action to improve the service.

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. Hospital information packs were generated from the electronic care planning system. This gave up to date details regarding people's care and current support and included recent care documentation. This process ensured a streamlined approach to people’s care and support.

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 knowledgeable about recognising and responding to abuse and took appropriate actions to keep people safe. One staff member said, “I would report abuse immediately. I am very confident that actions would be taken. If felt that nothing had been done, I would contact the local safeguarding team.” People felt safe living at Westfield House and told us the staff had their best interests in mind. People told us they would raise concerns if they felt someone was not being treated well but quickly told us they had never seen anything that worried them.

The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA. Mental capacity care plans were in place and DoLS were requested as appropriate. Care plans detailed people's mental health and reasoning for DoLS and considered people's best interest decisions.

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 associated with people’s care were identified and managed to keep people safe. Staff knew people well and understood risks involved in their support. One staff member said, “Person centred risk assessments and support plans are regularly reviewed. We are continuously monitoring our service users’ physical and mental health, and we adjust assessments and care plans to reflect any changes. We are safe and supportive to our service users enabling them to live safely and independently and in a safe environment.”

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. Environmental checks were completed in line with expected standards. An evacuation bag was in place and contained personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) to ensure people were supported appropriately to exit the home in an emergency.

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. The provider had a robust recruitment process which included obtaining pre-employment checks to assist them in recruiting suitable staff. People were involved in the interview process. One person said, “I am involved in staff interviews. If we see something we like in someone, [the provider] would listen and take it forward.”

Staff received training and support which gave them the skills, knowledge and confidence to carry out their role’s effectives. One staff member said, “I have supervisions regularly and I feel confident that I can always request to have a supervision if I feel I need another one. I also attend [personal development reviews] with management where I discuss my options and goals for the future.” We observed staff interacting with people and found there were enough staff to support people in a timely way. Staffing ratios were calculated based on people’s individual needs. Staff told us staffing hours would be increased if people’s needs changed.

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. We carried out a tour of the home and found the service was predominantly clean. However, some areas of the home required cleaning. For example, some people’s rooms required some attention. One person’s fridge required replacing, the registered manager took immediate action to address this issue.

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. People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicine management systems were well organised and staff received training in the safe administration of medicines. People who were prescribed medicines on an ‘as and when’ required basis, often referred to as PRN, had protocols in place to ensure safe and appropriate administration. Leaders regularly checked staff to ensure they were competent in safe administration of medicines.