Westdale Residential Care Home

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection 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 service 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. The manager had good oversight of incidents that had happened at the service and knew how to support improvements. One person explained how they had fallen over in the care home. Staff had arrived quickly and worked with them to work out what caused the fall. This learning had helped the person feel safer from future falls.

The service 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. This included staff assessing people’s suitability to live in the care home, and recording how best people could be supported. One person told us, “When I came to the care home, I had a pre-admission assessment. I spoke to someone about my needs and this was passed onto the other staff. So, they all knew how to support me.”

People were kept safe from abuse and were supported to live safely. The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Every person we spoke to told us they felt safe at the service.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People were involved with care plan reviews. These regular reviews with a key worker allowed people to understand risks. People then worked with staff to decide how to remain safe. For example, one person wanted to go into the community but was at risk of falling over. Staff supported them to find safe walking routes to reduce the risk of falls.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The service was advertised as being for people with lower-level care needs, so staff supported people who were largely independent. People told us that the environment supported them before they needed to transition to a more traditional care home environment.

The service made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. Staff worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. One person told us, “There is always someone about and they respond really quickly.” Another person said, “They know what they are doing. They are very skilled.”

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. One person told us, “It’s spotless. Every room is properly deep cleaned each week.”

The service did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. Staff did not always keep clear records when ‘as needed’ medicines were given and why the person had needed them. There was not always clear guidance on how medicine should be given to a person. We saw one person needed their topical medicine moving to a different area of their body, but this movement was not happening as often as prescribed. We explained our medicine concerns to the registered manager, they gave assurances that improvements would be made. They also sent evidence that apology letters were sent to the people who had been affected.