Westlands

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ People who used the service had access to the provider’s own minibus which meant they were able to go out regularly for activities. People therefore did not need to use public transport or taxis which reduced the risk of exposure to COVID-19 whilst still allowing them to undertake some of their usual activities. On the day of the inspection, we observed people being supported by staff to go to the local restaurant using the minibus.

¿ Staff had put systems in place to book visitors in at a time that suited people and required visitors to be spaced out to reduce the risk of potential infection transmission. There were systems in place to check staff working in the service and other professionals had received their COVID-19 vaccinations before being deployed.

¿ The premises were clean and well-maintained. Staff had increased the frequency of cleaning the premises at the start of the pandemic. During a recent COVID-19 outbreak at the service, staff had liaised regularly with external healthcare professionals including the community infection prevention and control (IPC) lead nurse. One healthcare professional told us after delivering IPC training to staff at the service, “The staff were very knowledgeable at the teaching sessions and keen to interact. [Registered manager] will ask questions by both telephone or email if [they have] a query and is always very thankful of our support.”

¿ Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with current government guidance to protect people from the risk of infection. The management team had ensured there was a sufficient supply of PPE available in the event of an outbreak. This included enhanced PPE, such as masks which provided the user with a higher level of protection and disposable overalls. There was PPE available throughout the premises along with appropriate waste disposal facilities. The registered manager had kept the Care Quality Commission updated when the service was affected by events in relation to COVID-19.

At our last inspection we rated the service ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of ‘Good’ and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection..

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

People lived in a safe environment which was clean and regularly checked. Individual risks to people were assessed and plans were put in place to keep people safe whilst encouraging their independence. Where incidents had occurred, staff took appropriate actions to ensure people’s safety. There were sufficient numbers of staff present at the home to ensure that people were safe and staff were knowledgeable about how to manage risks and respond to potential safeguarding concerns. Staff were trained in how to administer people’s medicines safely and the provider maintained good practice in this area.

Staff had been given the right training and support to carry out their roles. People are 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 received a thorough assessment before coming to live at the home and the home environment was suited to people’s needs. Staff supported people to prepare meals that they liked and that matched their dietary needs.

People were supported by kind staff that knew them well. Staff routinely involved people in decisions about their care and identified ways to encourage people to develop skills and independence. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff when providing care.

People were supported to identify and achieve goals and care was planned in a person-centred way. Regular reviews were carried out to ensure care plans reflected people’s current needs and any changes were responded to. People had access to a range of activities that suited their interests as well as their needs. There was a clear complaints policy in place and the provider took proactive steps to identify and respond to feedback from people and their relative.

People and relatives spoke highly of the management at the home and the registered manager was accessible to people at all times. Staff praised the support that they received from management and there were systems in place to encourage staff to make suggestions and identify improvements. The provider regularly sought the feedback of people and relatives and involved them in decisions about their care at the home. There were a variety of checks and audits in place to monitor and assure the quality of the care that people received.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We saw people's care records were person centred meaning that they were contained personal and up to date information specifically about the person and their needs and choices about their care. The care records had the information in them that staff required to support the people appropriately.

During the inspection we spoke to all of the staff on duty. We found the staff to be supportive and caring of all of the people and they had a good understanding of their care and support needs. We observed the staff and their interaction with people and saw that they arranged activities to suit each person's needs. Staff had received the appropriate training to support the people, many of whom could not verbally communicate their wishes.

Staff had knowledge of adult safeguarding procedures and how to report concerns. This meant that they were able to recognise suspected harm or abuse and what action to take to reduce the risk of harm and how to deal with it if it happened.

We saw that there was a variety of activities planned the meet the needs of people using the service and that the people were able to choose whether or not they wanted to take part in the activities. If people chose not to engage then staff helped them to choose other things to do.

We saw that the provider had procedures in place to manage and investigate complaints and concerns about the service. The records we saw confirmed that any complaints and concerns were properly looked into and responded to. Suggestions about how the service could be improved were also dealt with properly.

People that used the service who were in the home were not able to communicate verbally with us during our inspection or had a limited ability to do so. So we observed interactions between staff and people that used the service to determine how their needs were met and their experiences.

We saw that people's care records provided good information about how people's care needs should be met. The records we looked at were detailed and provided staff with the information they needed to support people appropriately.

We spoke with all of the staff on duty during our inspection. We found that staff on duty had a good understanding of the care needs of people and observed how they supported them to meet their needs. Staff had been trained in areas relevant to the specific needs of people who used the service.

Staff had knowledge about safeguarding procedures in the home. This meant that they knew and understood how to recognise and report any concerns or suspected abuse.

We saw that the provider had procedures in place for managing and investigating complaints. The records we looked at confirmed that any complaints were properly recorded and looked into.