Archived: OSJCT Westbury Court

Updated 3 April 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

One inspector completed this inspection with an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. In this case caring for and working with older people.

Service and service type

OSJCT Westbury Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a 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 had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We reviewed all other information we held about the service since the last inspection. This included information forwarded to us by the provider, about events which had occurred, involving people who used the service. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with eight people who used the service and three relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with nine staff which included one care leader, a nurse, one administrator, one laundry assistant, the head cook, the head housekeeper, deputy manager, registered manager and two representatives of the provider.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and a selection of medicine administrations records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment, including records relating to staff supervision and training. A variety of records relating to the management of the service were reviewed, including quality monitoring audits, current continuous improvement plan, fire risk assessment and certificate of compliance in relation to the management of risk associated with Legionella.

After the inspection

We received feedback on the services provided to people from commissioners of the service.

Updated 3 April 2020

About the service

OSJCT Westbury Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 42 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection 34 people were receiving care and support in one adapted building.

People had their own bedrooms and there were ample shared facilities; lounge and dining areas, bathrooms and toilets. Outside, people could enjoy the use of an enclosed garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People had benefitted from the work the registered manager and provider had completed, since the last inspection. This had led to improvements in people’s care experiences at OSJCT Westbury Court.

There had been some changes to the staff who provided support and leadership. Senior staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had the skills and knowledge to provide other staff with the support they required. The working culture had changed, staff were committed to working as one team to support people’s wellbeing. People’s welfare and wellbeing had remained staffs’ priority, but staffs’ ability to provide more person-centred care to people had improved.

Changes in ways of working and communicating with external healthcare professionals meant staff were in a better position to support people’s health needs and get these needs promptly discussed and reviewed. Although the service needed a replacement activities co-ordinator, staff were taking turns in supporting people to enjoy a mix of social activities.

People told us they felt safe and cared for. Managers ensured there were enough staff with the appropriate skills to meet people’s needs. Staff worked in collaboration with external agencies to safeguard people from abuse and discrimination. People received the support they required to take their medicines. Arrangements were in place to keep the environment safe, clean and reduce risks of infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People who lacked mental capacity were protected because the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were adhered to.

People’s needs were assessed and risks to their health, safety and welfare identified and action taken to reduce or remove these risks altogether. There were daily arrangements in place to support effective communication, amongst all staff, about changes in people’s care and risks which they needed to be aware of. Care records were well maintained to ensure staff and visiting professionals had up to date information about people’s needs and risks, so these could be appropriately managed.

People and their representatives were involved in planning their care. Where appropriate, family members were consulted and kept well informed about people’s care and progress.

People’s preferences and personal choices were known to staff who supported these where it was safe to do so. People’s dining experience had improved, and people told us they had a choice in what they ate and drank. People’s differing communication needs were understood by the staff who took time to ensure people could express their views and be included in decisions about their care. People’s dignity and privacy was upheld. Staff applied a balance in how they supported people’s independence and their safety.

The provider had a complaints process in place. Complaints and concerns were managed well and resolved where at all possible to do so. Managers were visible and approachable, and people, relatives and staff felt able to talk with them when they needed to. Learning was taken from complaints and general feedback to improve the service.

Both the provider and registered manager had good systems in place to monitor the services and care provided to people. The provider supported the registered manager in ensuring the service remained compliant with necessary regulations and in line with their own standards and expectations. Plans were in place to make continuous improvements to the service and progress relating to these was monitored. Extensive refurbishment to the home was due to take place in 2020, aimed at improving people’s comfort and the facilities available to people.

Staff worked in collaboration with individuals and groups in the community so that people’s quality of life and social opportunities could be improved.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 22 February 2019). At this inspection the rating improved to Good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.