Westleigh House

Updated 17 April 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection. It took place on 22 March 2018.

The inspection team included one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection, we looked at previous inspection reports. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

People using the service could provide only limited verbal feedback about their experience of life there. During the inspection, we used different methods to give us an insight into people’s experiences. These methods included both formal and informal observation throughout the inspection. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not comment directly on their experiences. We were able to observe how staff interacted with people to see how care was provided.

We spoke with one person using the service. We received feedback from three people’s family members, seven staff and the registered manager.

We reviewed two people’s care records. We saw records of staff meetings, and looked at quality monitoring information, and the action plan, relating to the management of the service. We saw the premises safety records. We received feedback from one health care professional.

Updated 17 April 2018

Westleigh House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and we looked at both during this inspection. 10 people with learning and physical disability were receiving residential care at Westleigh House. One was in hospital at the time of the inspection. People using the service were over 64 years of age. Westleigh House has been adapted to provide accommodation over two floors, with a vertical lift between floors.

The care service is aware of the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. There were currently no plans to reduce the size of the service or amend the current registration at Westleigh House but people using the service were living as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

Safety arrangements protected people. This included recruitment, staffing, preventing infection, medicine management, and maintaining the premises. Staff knew how to recognise and protect people from abuse and discrimination.

Systems for risk management were not fully robust. Although risk from pressure damage was mitigated, this risk was not formally assessed and staff said they had not received training in pressure sore prevention in recent years. We recommend the provider to review the arrangements for protecting vulnerable people from pressure damage.

People received a caring service, which recognised their need for privacy and respect. All engagements between staff and people using the service were friendly, relaxed, gave people value and showed they were cared for. People’s family members said, “I’ve always felt it was a very family atmosphere.”

People lived full lives according to their preference and ability. The premises were adapted so that people had equal access to shared areas, and their private rooms were personalised.

Staff skill, competence, and effectiveness helped them provide the care and support people needed. Staff described their training as “High Standard”. People’s family members said there was a consistent team of staff, who knew people very well.

Staff upheld people’s legal rights. This included gaining their consent to care and treatment and upholding the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People received a nutritious, varied diet, meeting their individual health care needs. Attention was given to health monitoring, particularly as people’s needs changed with age. This included appropriate requests for advice and treatment from external health care professionals.

Detailed, well organised, care and support plans provided staff with the information they needed to provide person centred care. An understanding by staff of people’s communication helped them provide that care because they knew what people wanted.

Staff felt well supported and praised the approach of the registered manager. Audits, and monitoring, carried out in-house and through the provider, ensured any problem could be identified and rectified. People, their families and others were encouraged to offer their thoughts and ideas.

The registered manager understood and met their legal responsibilities.