Archived: Housing & Care 21 - Westbourne Park

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service and their relatives told us, the records we looked at and what staff we spoke with also told us.

If you would like to see the evidence that supports our summary then please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Housing 21 - Westbourne Park is a domiciliary care agency that provides support and personal care to elderly people living in their own homes.

Staff had been recruited following appropriate recruitment procedures and the completion of relevant police and health checks. Staff had received an induction before starting work and had completed core training in subjects such as safeguarding, moving and handling techniques, health and safety and food hygiene. Staff also shadowed more experience staff before they began working on their own.

There were measures in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. Although staff had not received training in basic first aid during their induction, staff we spoke with were able to explain how they would respond to an emergency situation if it arose. This involved ensuring that people were safe, comfortable and reassured before contacting the main office and emergency services if needed.

Staff responded to potential safeguarding issues appropriately and had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. The service had an up to date safeguarding policy and systems in place to ensure that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities and had received training in safeguarding during their induction.

Is the service effective?

People who used the service told us that they were happy with their care. We found that people who used the service and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support. Relatives of people who used the service told us that the service was 'very good about meeting demand' and that care 'was consistent' and 'made a big difference.' The registered manager told us that people and their relatives were asked about who they would like to support them and given choices in this matter that took account of personal preferences, gender, culture, language spoken and beliefs.

Staff had a mix of qualifications, skill and experience and told us that they 'felt supported' in their roles and that they received adequate supervision. Staff we spoke with told us 'I love my job" and "it's very rewarding to help people to be independent.'

We saw personnel records that demonstrated staff were supervised and their performance monitored on a regular basis. The registered managed explained that senior staff carried out spot checks on staff working in people's homes to monitor the interactions that took place, whether staff had completed records correctly, were wearing suitable clothing and arriving on time for visits.

Is the service caring?

Staff we spoke with understood people's care and support needs and were aware of how to protect people's privacy and dignity. One person who used the service told us that the "staff look after me' and relatives we spoke with confirmed that staff were 'a good team' and 'very co-operative.'

We saw from people's care plans that they were supported to do the things they wanted to do. Staff told us that they went out with people, took them for walks, for coffee and to church and that people 'have a choice.' Relatives told us that they were 'more than happy with care.' Staff told us 'we try our best' and that people who used the service were 'like family.'

Staff told us that people's care was, where possible delivered by the same staff members in order to provide and promote continuity of care. Relatives confirmed this and told us that the staff 'tend to be the same.' Staff were responsible for completing daily logs and for monitoring the care, health and well-being of people who used the service. Staff we spoke with told us that they recorded 'how people are feeling and what's been done" each time they visited someone in their home.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they were matched with a team of staff. We saw that care plans recorded people's support and health needs and included a range of appropriate risk assessments. There was evidence that the service worked in collaboration with other health and social care professionals and we saw that occupational therapy assessments and reports from the Westminster Dementia Service had been incorporated into the care planning process.

The service monitored visits by staff to people's homes via a call monitoring system and was able to respond appropriately to late or absent staff by arranging cover staff and by contacting people who used the service with regular updates.

There was an appropriate complaints policy in place and information about how to make a complaint and to whom. This information was contained within the care plan. Staff told us that a copy of the care plan could always be found in people's homes. Relatives confirmed that they were aware of how to make a complaint and that when they had complained in the past, issues had been resolved satisfactorily. One person who used the service told us "I'm very happy with my care and if there's anything wrong I can report it."

The service had a suggestions and comments policy. Compliments about the service had also been logged. One relative had written to staff to say 'haven't seen my [relative] look so relaxed in a while.'

Is the service well-led?

The service had a registered manager in post. The registered manager told us that staff meetings normally took place every three months and that these were organised over a series of days to include as many staff as possible in discussion around service provision and improvements. Staff told us that they were able 'to express their views' and that they were 'well supported.' Staff had a good understanding of the challenges of working with people with dementia and told us that they 'like looking after people' and that the best thing about the job was 'giving purpose to someone's life.' Staff we spoke with told us that they could speak to the management team at any time and that the service was 'definitely well- led."

Relatives we spoke with told us that they worked "together in partnership" with the staff team and that they were 'really happy' with the service.

People's individual care needs had been assessed before a service was provided and took account of the person's wishes and those of their family. Relatives we spoke to confirmed that the service was centred on an individual's needs, as set out in the care plan.

The agency had good relationships with other agencies involved in supporting an individual, particularly with other parts of the borough's dementia service. They had protocols in place to protect a person's safety and welfare when people moved between services.

People were looked after by staff who were adequately trained and supported.

The provider had arrangements for monitoring the quality of service provided to people.