Westmead

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.



At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Staff at the service made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, well-being and communication needs with them. There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor people’s needs. This included handover meetings between staff who was starting and finishing their shift, staff meetings and meetings with relevant healthcare professionals supporting people and their relatives.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The processes in place were effective to ensure people's needs were assessed and planned for. Records examined demonstrated risks was continually monitored and assessed. Care Plans were comprehensive and clearly detailed people’s specific mental health and physical health needs. The management team was aware of best practices when supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. Staff made timely referrals and worked well with other agencies to ensure people's treatment needs were met. Health care professionals’ comments included, “Staff have been very receptive. The [specific health] plans have been followed straight away, additional information has been captured efficiently at my request. My advice and suggestions have been followed, and feedback has been given efficiently as to what is/not working so that we can devise a new plan for the good of the service user.”

The registered manager had implemented workshops for staff focusing on the care and support individual persons required; this allowed staff to receive individualised training on how best to support each person. The registered manager had also developed a team building activity to engage staff in defining the goals for the service, challenges and solutions. This promoted team building and better outcomes for people.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff supported people with their health and wellbeing, referring them to other services as necessary. For example, the provider had regular contact with the local speech and language team to support a person at risk of choking. Records showed other health professionals involved which included, the GP, district nurses, podiatry and dentists.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met clinical expectations. Care plans were personalised to ensure outcomes could be met ensuring people received safe and effective support. There was a system of monthly evaluation of risk assessments and people's care plans. Relatives told us they had been involved in reviewing people’s care plans. One relative commented, “It is an annual review around [person’s] personal centred care, the last one we did on e-mail, we are asked is there was anything the family we're trying to get [person] to do, that the family wanted to do to build into the plan. I am also involved in the deprivation of liberty, when they do those reviews every year, they get me involved.” Other relative told us, “I think it is an annual, review, but they do a monthly report and send that out as well. I have seen the care plan and had the chance to comment.”

The provider ensured people’s rights around consent were respected when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of gaining consent to care and this was documented in care records. We reviewed the home’s policies and procedures to check whether the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and found these to be appropriate. Any restrictions in place were in the best interests of the person. We found mental capacity assessments had been completed but not always reviewed in a timely manner. The nominated individual told us they had an action plan to ensure these were reviewed on an annual basis or when there was specific need.