Archived: Westdene Residential Home

Updated 26 May 2016

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 registered 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 inspection took place on 26 April 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We checked our systems for any notifications that had been sent in as these would tell us how the registered provider managed incidents and accidents that affected the welfare of people who used the service.

Prior to the inspection we spoke with local authority contracts and commissioning teams about their views of the service. We also spoke with a health professional.

During the inspection we observed how staff interacted with people who used the service throughout the days and at mealtimes. We spoke with seven people who used the service and three of their relatives. We spoke with the registered manager and registered provider, four day care and two night care workers, a person who mentored staff through induction and training and a person who provided music and art activities. We also spoke with a visiting health professional and a social worker. Following the inspection we spoke with a specialist social worker for older people with mental health concerns.

We looked at four care files which belonged to people who used the service. We also looked at other important documentation relating to people who used the service such as 25 medication administration records (MARs), visits from health and social care professionals, key worker summaries, activities and accidents and incidents. We looked at how the service used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that when people were assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, best interest meetings were held in order to make important decisions on their behalf. We also checked how people’s personal allowance was managed.

We looked at a selection of documentation relating to the management and running of the service. These included three staff recruitment files, training records, the staff rota, minutes of meetings with staff and people who used the service, quality assurance audits, complaints management and maintenance of equipment records.

Updated 26 May 2016

Westdene Residential Home is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for 40 older people, some of whom who may be living with dementia. It is situated close to local amenities and public transport routes. All bedrooms are for single use and are located over two floors. There is a range of communal rooms on the ground floor and access to three courtyards. There is a small car park and further on-street car parking nearby.

The service had a registered manager in post as required by a condition of their registration. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We undertook this unannounced inspection on the 26 April 2016. At the time of the inspection there were a total of 40 people living in Westdene Residential Home. At the last inspection on 14 May 2014, the registered provider was compliant with all areas assessed.

We found people’s health and nutritional needs were met. Staff contacted community health care professionals when required and supported people to visit hospital appointments. The meals provided to people were varied and choices were available. There were special diets for some people as required. Dieticians were contacted for advice and treatment when people lost weight or there were concerns about their food and fluid intake.

We found people who used the service received their medicines as prescribed. Staff managed medicines well and ensured they were obtained, stored, administered to people and disposed of appropriately.

We found staff supported people to make their own decisions. When people lacked capacity for this, staff acted within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and ensured important decisions were made within best interest meetings with relevant people present.

People had assessments of their needs completed and care plans were developed to guide staff in how to support people in the way they preferred. We saw person-centred care was provided to people. There were meaningful activities for people to participate in which helped them to be occupied.

Staff were recruited safely and employment checks were carried out prior to them starting work at the service. The checks helped to ensure only appropriate staff were employed to work with people who potentially could be vulnerable.

We found there was sufficient staff on duty to support people with their assessed needs and to sit and chat with them. People told us staff were kind and caring and we observed this during the inspection. Staff provided people with information and spoke with them in a patient way. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and their confidential information was held securely.

Staff had access to training which helped them to feel skilled and confident when supporting people who used the service. The training was monitored and refresher courses made available. Their competence was checked to make sure the training was effective. Staff received supervision, appraisal and support.

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm and abuse. They completed safeguarding training and there were policies and procedures to guide them should they have any concerns. People who used the service had risk assessments for specific areas of daily life. These helped to guide staff in how to minimise risk. We found the environment was clean and safe for people. Equipment used in the service was monitored and well-maintained.

The service had a quality monitoring system in place which ensured that checks were made and people were able to express their views. The registered provider and registered manager were approachable and people who used the service and their relatives were listened to and their views taken seriously so practice could be improved. There was a complaints procedure on display and people felt able to complain.