Westdale Residential Care Home

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating remains good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective. This is because people’s physical health needs were not always clearly recorded in care planning documents. We saw written care plans did not always provide enough detail on how staff could support people’s physical health conditions. However, staff understood people’s physical health needs well. This documentation issue was raised with the registered manager who took prompt action to start improving care plan documentation for physical health needs.

The service 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. People explained that staff were skilled and supported them in line with current standards. We spoke to staff, who had good knowledge of current standards, including national tools that were available to them. This helped them provide care in the most effective way possible. People told us that they received enough to eat and drink and that the food was good quality.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once, by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. One person said, “Whenever I go to hospital, they know my needs and information is passed on efficiently. I don’t have to repeat things.” Another person said, “One huge pro of coming here. If I need a doctor, it’s all arranged for me.” Staff explained there was a clear handover process between their shifts. They also showed us clear record keeping of communication with other health and social care professionals. We spoke to external professionals, who told us that the staff always communicated well with them.

The service supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The service supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People and staff spoke highly of the exercise activities, and healthy food that was on offer.

The service routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, people’s weights were regularly taken. Staff then used national tools to assess if people were at risk of weight loss. People were then supported to receive dietary support if needed. Staff had good knowledge of what was important to people and how to monitor their wellbeing.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People and staff explained that consent was always sought before support was offered. One person had a mental capacity assessment, the manager explained how this had been completed in line with the capacity act. Whilst the manager had good knowledge, we found the document was not clear how the capacity assessment was completed. We reported this to the registered manager, and they later sent evidence of an improved mental capacity assessment. The improved documentation showed that the manager understood the processes in a mental capacity assessment, and this was just a recording issue.