We carried out a review of the data available to us about Westport House Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Westport House Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Westport House Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 10 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 11 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The management team had Improved their auditing systems to maintain ongoing oversight of the service and make improvements where necessary. Quality assurance processes ensured people were able to give their views of the service. In addition, we found the provider acted upon suggestions to improve the administration and management of prescribed creams and medicines. Staff were able to describe good practice in safeguarding principles to protect people from harm, injury or unsafe care. Staff followed current guidance to maintain good infection control measures. Safe systems of recruitment were in place and people told us they felt safe. People's needs were assessed before they moved into Westport House.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 12 March 2020).
The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
At our last inspection we recommended the provider review documentation related to administration of medicines. Also consider current guidance on the administration and management of prescribed creams and medicines and act to update their practice accordingly. At this inspection we found improvements had been made.
Why we inspected
This inspection was carried out to follow up on action we told the provider to take at the last inspection. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
Follow Up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Westport House Care Home is a residential care home providing personal care to 10 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 11 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Medicines were administered safely; however good practice guidelines were not always followed. We have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies in the service supported this practice. However, not all restrictions were documented on Dols applications. We have made a recommendation the service work within the principles of the MCA.
Care plans and risk management documents did not always hold comprehensive information. We have made recommendations about this. Language used and written did not always promote people’s dignity, bed rails were referred to as cot sides. We have made a recommendation about this.
Safe systems of recruitment were in place and people told us they felt safe. People’s needs were assessed before they moved into Westport House. Staff received induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles effectively. People's nutritional and health needs were met.
People were relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. Staff and managers knew people well. One relative said, "Staff know [family member] well. She is always smiling, and that is reassuring for me." People were treated with respect and dignity; staff supported people to maintain their independence.
People were provided with personalised care that took account of their needs, wishes and preferences. There was a caring rapport and familiarity. There was an appropriate system to manage complaints. People’s wishes for end of life care and support were identified, respected and recorded.
Everyone was positive about the registered manager and the way the home was managed and organised. The home worked in partnership with a variety of agencies to ensure people received all the support they needed. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager and management team.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good published 06 September 2017.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Enforcement
We have identified breaches in relation to Good governance at this inspection. We found audits did not always identify the improvements that were required.
Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.
Follow up
We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
This was an unannounced inspection visit carried out on the 08 August 2017.
People who lived at the home and visitors told us the registered manager and all the staff were kind, patient and respectful. For example a person who lived at the home said, “They are so nice and kind and do feel cared for.”
The registered manager had procedures in place to minimise the potential risk of abuse or unsafe care. Records looked at and staff spoken with confirmed they had received safeguarding vulnerable adults training. The registered manager had systems in place to record safeguarding concerns, accidents and incidents and take necessary action as required.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided. In addition staff had been recruited safely, appropriately trained and supported. They had skills, knowledge and experience required to support people with their care and social needs.
The registered manager had sufficient staffing levels in place to provide support people required. Staff informed us they had time to sit and talk with people in their care and organise activities to keep them entertained and occupied. Our observations during the day of the inspection visit confirmed this.
Medication procedures at Westport were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storing in place.
People who lived at the home were complimentary about the meals provided and choices available. One person who lived at the home said, “If I don’t like something I can always have an alternative. The food is very good.” Regular snacks and drinks were provided during the time of the inspection visit to make sure people received adequate nutrition and hydration throughout the day.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.
People had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs were met. We saw the staff and registered manager had responded promptly when people had experienced health problems.
People who lived at the home had access to advocacy services. This ensured their interests were represented by professionals outside of the service to act on their behalf if needed
The registered manager had a complaints procedure which was made available to people on their admission to the home and their relatives. No complaints had been received.
The registered manager used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included regular audits, staff and ‘resident’ meetings to seek their views about the service provided and their opinions to improve the home.
The inspection visit took place on 26 May 2015 and was unannounced.
Westport House is a care home for 11 people who are living with dementia. The home is situated in Thornton near Blackpool. All of the bedrooms within the home have en-suite facilities. A lift is available to the first floor. The home has a large conservatory at the rear of the house. At the time of our visit there were 10 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
At the last inspection on 15 April 2013 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.
People who lived at the home and visitors we spoke with told us they felt cared for, safe and secure. People’s care and support needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Care records we looked at contained details of their preferences, interests, likes and dislikes. Relatives we spoke with told us they had been consulted about their relative’s care and were informed of any changes that occurred. People who lived at the home told us their views and choices were listened to by the staff and registered manager.
We observed staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs and staff we spoke with were happy with the amount of staff available to support people. The registered manager had safeguarded people against unsuitable staff by following their recruitment policy. All employment checks were in place before staff started work. Staff received regular supervision and training to ensure their development continued and they were provided the support to care for the people who lived at the home.
We observed medication was being administered in a safe manner. We looked at how medicines were managed and found appropriate arrangements for their recording and safe administration.
Staff were trained well and they told us access to attend courses were supported by the management team. The staff members we spoke with told us they discussed their training needs in their regular formal supervision sessions. These were one to one meetings with their manager. Records demonstrated these meetings were held on a regular basis.
Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how people should be treated in terms of respect and dignity. During our observations we saw examples of staff being respectful, caring and sensitive towards people who were living with dementia.
We found examples the service had responded to changes in people’s care needs. We found evidence in records where referrals had been made to external professionals. Records were up to date and reviewed providing information for staff to deliver quality care.
We observed staff assisting people at lunchtime to eat their meals. They were kind and patient, engaging with the person they were attending to in conversation and making the lunch time meal a pleasant and relaxing time. Comments about the quality of food were good.
People who lived at the home were encouraged and supported to maintain relationships with their friends and family members. Relatives we spoke with told us they were always made welcome at any time.
We found a number of audits were in place to monitor quality assurance. Records demonstrated identified issues were acted upon in order to make improvements. The registered manager and provider had systems in place to obtain the views of relatives and people who lived at the home.
Although some residents had limited verbal communication due to a dementia condition, we did receive positive comments about the service. One of the residents we were able to talk with said, 'The staff are very good to everyone'. Also, 'The food is good.'
During our inspection we looked at care records and undertook a tour of the building. One relative we spoke with about the cleanliness of the home said. 'The building is always clean and well looked after.'
We observed meal times and spoke with relatives and residents. We did this to confirm people were supported and cared for. One relative we spoke with said, 'This is a lovely home run by caring people.' We observed care practices and saw people were treated with respect and dignity. The people we spoke with said they were receiving safe and appropriate care which was meeting their needs.
Previous to our visit we contacted the Lancashire contracts monitoring team. They told us they currently had no concerns with the service being provided by the home.
Responses from everyone we spoke with were positive they included from people who live at Westport House ," Yes it's lovely." Also, "They are really nice people."
Staff said to us they would be comfortable in raising any concerns they may have and feel the home is run in the residents best interest.
Staff spoken with had an awareness of individual care needs of people and the
importance of treating people with respect and dignity. We also saw evidence of this as we walked around the home, by the way staff supported people and talked to them. A relative we spoke with said, "They are very good at understanding people with dementia." A staff member said, "Dementia is a terrible condition, the training we have had makes me more aware of the issues and helps me understand better."
As part of the review process we spoke with social services for a view of how the home
operates. They told us they had no issues in respect of the delivery of care or any
safeguarding concerns.