Westall House

At the last inspection we found there was a breach in Regulation 14 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 because the provider had not notified the Care Quality Commission about the absence of a previous registered manager for over 28 days. At this inspection we found no concerns in relation to notifications.

Westall House is a residential care home for up to 22 older people with a range of needs catered for, including people living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 21 people living at the home. On the same site is a sheltered housing service which we do not regulate. There are two floors and a range of communal spaces throughout including a dining room and lounge spaces.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service improved to Outstanding.

Why the service is now rated Outstanding.

Since the last inspection the registered manager and provider had worked hard to ensure there were continual improvements at the home. These had been recognised by the home receiving the 'house of the year' award from the provider and an external national nomination for the activities coordinator.

People received exceptionally good care from staff who treated them like part of their extended family and knew them incredibly well. They had found ways to involve people in all decisions about their care and home. Feedback from people, relatives and visitors to the home informed us about how well cared for they felt. Care and support was incredibly personalised to each person, which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives in line with their needs, hobbies and interests. Information about their preferences were gathered in detail by members of staff allocated to help them write their life story.

People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff and their cultural or religious needs were valued. People, or their representatives, were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People who had specific end of life wishes had their preferences facilitated by staff to help provide a dignified death.

The service provided to people was responsive to people's individual needs. There was an activities coordinator who ran the activities in the home with incredible passion. They had listened to every person's wishes and needs so they could develop bespoke activities to enrich their lives. There was a range of opportunities for people and their families to participate in. Activities always considered people's hobbies

and interests and were personalised as much as possible.

The provider promoted a drive to access pilot schemes and find ways to innovate the support people received. There was a strong emphasis on intergenerational and community working in the home. These provided opportunities for people to reminisce and promoted their well-being by being valued.

There was a high level of volunteers who regularly came and supported the home. They ran activities and felt a valued part of the community which the provider and management were promoting. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to in a timely manner. The registered manager had a strong ethos of valuing any concern a person or their relative raised because they knew how important it was for them.

The home had a provider and management who strove to provide people with excellent care. People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager was excellent and had ensured the best care and support was provided. The registered manager and provider continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people's changing needs.

The provider wanted to drive innovation and strive for excellence at all times. They encouraged staff to participate in national pilots to improve the care and support people received. The staff and registered manager had received internal recognition and national recognition for the work they were doing. Staff at all levels felt supported and were proud their work to improve the lives for people had been recognised. They often went above and beyond to enrich people's experience and value them as people.

There were suitable numbers of staff to meet people's needs and to spend time socialising with them. Interactions were on a personal level and not just task based. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely. People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe and were sure action would be taken if any concerns were raised.

The home continued to ensure people received effective care. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People who required special diets had their needs met and meal times were treated as a social opportunity. Staff had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People told us their healthcare needs were met and staff supported them to attend appointments. One health care visitor was very complimentary about how the home supported the people they saw.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

The five questions we ask about services and what we found