Westley Court Care 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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

This service scored 71 (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 placed people at the centre of decisions about their care and treatment and worked in partnership with them to respond to changes in their needs. Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s preferences, including how they wished their health conditions to be managed. Staff supported people to maintain their independence and achieve outcomes that were important to them, including finding creative and individualised ways to meet people's wishes and preferences.
People spoke positively about the care they received. One person told us, “Staff are so responsive, very considerate and respectful, they care so much.” Another person described how staff supported them to remain independent in the community by ensuring they could easily access assistance when needed. Staff took the time to understand what was important to people and responded creatively to support their individual preferences and wellbeing. For example, when a person expressed a wish to experience an aspect of the outdoors that was no longer easily accessible to them, staff arranged for this experience to be recreated within the home, enabling the person to enjoy a meaningful and personalised activity.
 

The provider understood the diverse health and social care needs of people and worked collaboratively with partners to deliver joined-up, flexible care that supported choice and continuity. People told us staff understood their needs and provided care that reflected their individual preferences and circumstances. Staff worked effectively with health and social care professionals to ensure people received appropriate support, and they made referrals to other services in a timely manner when additional input was required. The registered manager described positive working relationships with local authorities, which helped to promote effective communication, coordinated care and continuity of support for people using the service.

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard (AIS) policy in place and assessed and reviewed people’s communication needs. Care records detailed how staff should communicate with people to support their understanding and enable them to make informed decisions about their care and support. Staff adapted their communication to meet individual needs, helping to ensure people received information in ways they could understand.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. They sought feedback from people and their relatives through annual satisfaction surveys and shared regular information through monthly newsletters and activity calendars. However, the most recent survey received only 3 responses. Surveys were completed electronically, which meant not everyone was able to access or use them. We discussed with the provider the importance of exploring alternative ways to gather feedback to ensure more people could share their views and experiences. They were responsive to our feedback and told us they would review this. The provider had a complaints policy and a service user guide, which is a document that provides people with key information about the service and how it operates. However, the service user guide did not include all the required information, including details on how to raise a complaint. As a result, information about how to share concerns or make a complaint was not always readily available to people and their relatives. Following feedback, the provider updated the service user guide to include information on how to raise a complaint. They also advised they would continue to review the service user guides regularly to ensure all required information remains present, accessible and up to date.

The provider made sure that people could access care, support and treatment. One person told us, “Staff will arrange for the doctor to visit as and when needed.” The provider had systems in place to ensure people could access support outside normal working hours and in emergencies. Care plans reflected people's individual needs and identified any specialist equipment required to support their independence and wellbeing. We observed that this equipment was available where needed. The premises were accessible, with lifts providing access between floors, and the provider had installed signage in some areas in the area of the home where people with a diagnosis of dementia, including the dementia support unit were living, to help people identify communal spaces and navigate the building more easily.

The provider worked to ensure people experienced positive outcomes by providing person-centred care and access to appropriate healthcare support. Care plans reflected individual needs, and specialist equipment was available where required. The provider had an equality and diversity policy in place, and most staff had completed equality and diversity training to help them understand and respond to people's individual needs. These arrangements helped people maintain their wellbeing, independence and quality of life.

The provider supported people to consider their wishes for future care and treatment, including decisions about emergency care and end of life care, to help ensure these preferences could be respected. At the time of our assessment, no one was receiving end of life care. The provider had discussed future care wishes with some people and recorded this information in care plans, although the level of detail varied and some plans contained limited information. Some people had Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) forms in place, which record a decision not to attempt CPR if a person's heart or breathing stops. Some people also had Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms, which set out a person's preferences and agreed recommendations for their care and treatment in an emergency. These arrangements helped the provider to understand and respect people's wishes when planning for the future.