Westerleigh

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

People were safeguarded from harm and where concerns arose, investigations took place and action taken to mitigate the circumstances and learn lessons for the future. There were a number of medicines errors, by both agency and permanent staff. Checks and audits highlighted these, and action was taken to try and address the shortfalls, although numbers remained high. The provider was introducing a new electronic medicines system to look to improve the situation.

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

People and relatives were involved in care planning and told us they were happy with the care provided. Care records provided adequate information, although lacked detail in some areas. Staff were aware of people’s needs and how to support them for positive outcomes. Staff were aware of how best to gain their consent. Where necessary best interests decisions had been taken in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People and relatives felt the care provided was kind and considerate, and staff were supportive and helpful. A range of activities were undertaken to occupy people and help maintain their interests.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider had in place a range of processes to involve people and relatives in determining care. Relatives told us they were actively involved in care and the provider listened to their views.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider had in place a range of processes to maintain the effective running of the services. Relatives and staff were positive about the registered manager and their oversight of the service. Relatives felt the registered manager was approachable. Regular checks and audits were undertaken, although these had not always highlighted some of the issues noted at this assessment. Professionals told us that communication with staff was variable, although was improving. The provider was committed to improving care and processes at the home.