• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Westfield House

Overall: Not rated read more about inspection ratings

Chester High Road, Neston, Merseyside, CH64 7TU (0151) 305 9880

Provided and run by:
Care In Mind Limited

Report from 4 April 2024 assessment

On this page

Well-led

Not rated

Updated 21 June 2024

There were effective governance systems in place to ensure people received safe and effective care. The registered manager completed a range of audits to ensure the service operated safely, and the wider management team had sufficient oversight of service delivery. The management team understood the importance of learning and developing care to meet people's needs, and this was evidenced during the assessment.

This service scored 21 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Shared direction and culture

Score: 0

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders

Score: 0

We did not look at Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Freedom to speak up

Score: 0

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion

Score: 0

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Governance, management and sustainability

Score: 3

Staff and leaders understood the importance of good governance in ensuring people received safe and effective care. Staff knew how to follow processes for reporting safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents or changes to people's care. Managers and leaders were able to explain the governance arrangements at the service and how these worked to ensure people received good, quality care.

There was a range of systems and processes for quality monitoring, which ensured the provider had good governance and oversight of service delivery. There was a business continuity plan in place in the event of an emergency and the provider's statement of purpose was up to date and accurate. There was a 'Residential action plan' which captured ongoing improvements identified thorough checks of care plans, medicines and other areas of people's care. Quality reports were completed each month which included reviews of safeguarding referrals and accidents and incidents. These were used to develop action plans to address any issues found and drive improvement. The management team had effective oversight over staffing numbers, safe recruitment checks and staff support and performance through supervision.

Partnerships and communities

Score: 0

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Learning, improvement and innovation

Score: 3

Staff told us they felt fully involved and engaged in the running of the service, and were able to share their views and contribute. Staff told us how they listen to people who use the service to learn and make improvements, through service user forums and family forums. 'Mutual help' meetings were held to ensure people had the opportunity to suggest ideas for improvement, which staff facilitated. Staff told us they had regular meetings which were described as, "Very effective" and had regular communication with people's families so learning could be shared and improvements made.

The provider sought feedback from new staff via surveys to ensure improvements could be made where required to the induction process and staff support. People who used the service received satisfaction surveys, so they could suggest ideas for improvement and give valuable feedback regarding the care they received. A 'young people forum' had been developed and staff were supporting people to contribute to this. There were 'key workers' in place who understood people's want and needs well and could advocate for them where appropriate. The management team completed weekly check-ins with relatives to ensure constructive feedback could be shared to make improvements.