Archived: Westwood House

Updated 15 January 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We inspected the service on 17 and 20 November 2015. The inspection was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors.

Before our inspection visit, we reviewed information that we held about the provider. Information we reviewed included notifications sent to us by the provider. A notification tells us about important events which the service is required to tell us by law.

We spoke with six people who used the service, relatives of four people who use the service, four staff members, including the registered manager and deputy manager, and three other professionals who visited the service. We contacted the local authority who had funding responsibility for people who were using the service to obtain their feedback about the service. We looked at the care records of four people who used the service, people’s medication records, staff training records, two staff recruitment files and the provider’s quality assurance documentation.

We spent time observing the care and support that people received. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspectors (SOFI) to observe the support staff provided to people over lunch time. SOFI a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who were unable to talk to us.

Updated 15 January 2016

We carried out our inspection on 17 and 20 November 2015. The inspection was unannounced on both days.

The service provides accommodation for up 16 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe at Westwood House. Staff had a good understanding of the provider’s procedure to keep people safe from harm and abuse. Staff told us they would report any concerns firstly to the registered manager and deputy manager. The managers referred concerns to relevant authorities. Staff also knew the external agencies they could contact if they were concerned about people’s safety, for example the local authority adult safeguarding team and Care Quality Commission.

People could not be assured that they would receive their medicines as prescribed by their doctor. The administration of medicines was not sufficiently safe and errors had occurred although we could not identify that anyone had suffered harm as a result. The registered manager told us they had plans in place to commence the improvements required to manage people’s medicines correctly.

The provider did not always support people in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2015. We found that the provider did not always complete mental capacity assessments where required. They also could not evidence that where they made decisions on behalf of people that they did so in people’s best interest.

People were supported with their nutritional and health needs. They had access to a variety of healthy meals that they told us they enjoyed. They also had prompt access to healthcare services when they needed them.

People told us they liked the quality of care they received from staff. They told us staff supported them to meet their individual needs. We observed that staff supported people in a caring manner, and promoted people’s dignity and privacy.

People using the service, their relatives and staff told us the managers were accessible and supported them when needed.

The provider had quality assurance systems to monitor the quality of the service. The system had failed to identify the concerns we found with the management and recording of people's medicines or in supporting people's human right under the Mental Capacity Act.