Westmead

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective –We reviewed 2 quality statements. Following this assessment, we have rated effective as good. People’s needs had not always been fully explored and care records we looked at were not robustly completed. Records to demonstrate compliance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) were seen and found to be appropriately recorded.

This service scored 67 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We asked the management team whether incidents were analysed to reduce the need for physical interventions from staff. We found analysis of incidents did not include a review of whether medication was administered for pain management, triggers identified before administering medication, staff action and capabilities and whether these factors contributed to incidents.

The provider did not have robust systems in place to ensure people's care needs had been assessed. Where events including accidents and incidents occurred, systems did not account for these issues to be reflected in people's updated assessed needs. The number of staff required to safely support people had not been effectively calculated, meaning this did not reflect people's assessed needs. Care plans we looked at showed assessments had been completed, although not fully reflective of people's care needs.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

One person's representative had expressed a preference for the workers they were supported by, but the provider had been unable to support consistency in the staff team deployed for this person. Overall we mixed feedback regarding how consent to care and treatment was gathered.

We found the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act and where needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to lawfully deprive a person if their liberty. Conditions related to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard authorisations were being met. We found the CCTV policy did not accurately reflect how this tool was used in practice.