Westdale Residential Care Home is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service provides accommodation for people living with a learning disability. The home can accommodate up to 18 people. At the time of our inspection there were 16 people living in the home. The service offers care for people with social care needs and most of the people needed no or minimal assistance with personal care. The service does not offer a service to people who have high needs.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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. In this report when we speak about both the company we refer to them as being, ‘the registered persons’.
At the last inspection the service was rated, ‘Good’. At the present inspection the service remained ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the overall 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.
People were offered the facility to manage their own medicines. For those who didn’t their medicines were managed safely.
Suitable quality checks were being completed and the provider had ensured that there was enough staff on duty. In addition, people told us that they received person-centred care.
There were systems, processes and practices to safeguard people from situations in which they may experience abuse. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed, monitored and managed so they were supported to stay safe while their freedom was promoted. Background checks had been completed before new staff had been appointed.
The service was clean and fresh and there were arrangements in place to prevent and control infections.
Staff had been supported to deliver care in line with current best practice guidance. People were able to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. People had access to healthcare services so that they received on-going healthcare support.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and to maintain their independence. Staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff were exceptionally kind and caring. People’s dignity and independence were promoted at all times and great care was taken to ensure people were living in a kind and caring, family atmosphere. People’s consent on how the service was managed was central to how the service was run and what was provided for people. This created a sense of ownership of the service and people were clear they were part of the running of the service. They had an active representative on the committee than ran the service. This ensured the managers of the service they knew how people wanted to be care for. Staff were caring and compassionate and ensured people’s families were a part of daily life in the service.
Information was provided to people in an accessible manner. People had been supported to access activities and community facilities. The registered manager recognised the importance of promoting equality and diversity. People’s concerns and complaints were listened and responded to in order to improve the quality of care.
There was a positive culture in the service that was focused upon achieving good outcomes for people. Further information is in the detailed findings below.