Westhope Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

People were not always supported in line with Right support, Right care, Right culture guidelines in providing care and support which is person-centred, planned, proactive and coordinated. People’s communication methods were not always proactively supported or encouraged by staff. Support recorded and offered did not always reflect their preferences or maintained their independence.

This service scored 65 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were generally treated with kindness and compassion. Some people told us staff were kind. However, some staff spoke to people using terms and tone which were not a dignified way to address adults. For example, “good girl”, “darling”.

Staff generally demonstrated real regard for the people they supported and spoke about them in positive terms. Staff comments included “I love it here; I love chatting with the people.”

Feedback from health professionals who spoke with us told us was positive. One health professional told us a person’s keyworker was very person focused and always checked with the person if they could talk to the health professional on the persons behalf.

People had support plans which recorded care needs and some preferences; however, they lacked details about people's aspirations and how they could be explored and possibly achieved.

People told us they liked the staff and the registered manager and knew most of the staff well. One person told us staff were going to write down some of their poems and make them into a book. People told us they would like to be more involved in the daily tasks around the house.

Most staff knew people well; however people were not always supported to their strengths and abilities. The registered manager understood the culture may be over cautious and told us they would review peoples wishes and needs against risk going forward.

We observed staff providing support with kindness; however, at times this was task focused, lacked positive interaction and people preferences were not always considered. For example, a bank staff member was observed not engaging with the person, simply sitting next to them, lacking direction from managers and staff to support the person with activities they preferred.

People had support plans which recorded care needs and some preferences; however, they lacked details about people's aspirations and how they could be explored and possibly achieved.

People did not always experience independence or choice. While staff generally tried to offer choice, it was with compromise. People told us they liked cooking but the kitchen was small and not readily accessible, so instead people did things like peeled vegetables on the dining table. One person said they would like to load a dishwasher, but the service had a large industrial sanitizer which did not support the persons choices. Activity plans were limited in variety. People and relatives told us they would like to do more.

Staff and leaders told us peoples independence was sometimes limited by the constraints of the building, such as access and they would like to offer more choice of activities. However, the registered manager told us that activities were starting to improve with some people going back to regular swimming sessions.

People were supported to attend planned appointments and visits during our visit.

The provider was in the process of completing reviews of peoples support plans. People had been registered to vote in the local elections, unfortunately the registered manager and staff had failed to recognise people needed photographic identification to exercise their right to vote and most people did not have this.

People and families told us they felt their immediate needs were met.

Staff demonstrated some awareness of people’s communication needs with limited use of Makaton sign. Staff were clear this was an area when they felt they would benefit for more learning opportunities around communication.

Staff spoke of people genuine regard. They knew peoples likes and dislikes and generally supported them in a caring manner.

Staff said they had time to meet people’s needs without rushing. Staff felt valued and were clear that they could speak with the registered manager and provider at any time. They felt their views, opinions and suggestions would be listened to.

Staff confirmed they had received induction and ongoing training. They felt they had the necessary training to provide good person-centred care for people. Staff had started to receive formal support The provider had resumed staff meetings and annual appraisals were in the process of being held.