Westmead

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – We looked at 1 quality statement and found a breach of regulation concerning a lack of person-centred care. Following this assessment, we have rated responsive as requires improvement. Systems did not ensure equity in people’s outcomes as people received support which was not consistent with their needs. 2 people had been served notice, although the reasons for these decisions were not evident and supported by records in the service.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Person-centred Care during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Listening to and involving people during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Relatives gave us mixed feedback about people’s outcomes. Some relatives told us their family members did not experience inequality. Others referred to the provider not having enough drivers or staff being told not to communicate with their loved one in their preferred language.

Two people had been served notice that their placement would be ending. We asked the management team about the reasons for these decisions and found this had not been thoroughly assessed. The decision to serve notice was not founded on robust evidence, or measures taken to consider what the provider could have done to explore alternatives to enable them to remain in their home.

Systems did not ensure equity in outcomes for people. We found people were not treated equitabily in respect of how staffing hours were allocated, despite differences in funding, whether they were given a chance to select a holiday destination and whether they were supported to access their community. People experienced different standards in their accommodation, with some living spaces being safer, cleaner and better equipped than others.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.