Westwood Lodge Care Home

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 – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment this key question has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people’s care and treatment was effective. Preadmission information had been used to form the basis for care plans, however, care plans were not always up to date or reviewed when people’s needs changed. Care plans did not always contain the detail to help staff support people well. At the time of the assessment, care plans were in the process of being reviewed but further improvements were needed.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. The catering staff had not always understood people’s needs and how to promote a healthy diet. People were not always complimentary about the food. A new chef had just been appointed and one person said, “Let’s hope he is better than the last.” Mealtimes were not always conducive to a good dining experience. Tables did not have tablecloths or decoration. The ground floor dining area was a small, cramped space with not enough room for people to socialise comfortably.

Staff worked across teams and services to support people. Although staff worked with other agencies and professionals such as GPs and community nursing services, some healthcare professionals commented working relationships could be improved. They said more engagement from the management team would be beneficial as it had not always been like that with previous management. The new manager had identified this as an area to focus on.

Staff did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Many people at the service had issues with addictions. We found minimal evidence of supporting and encouraging people to live healthier lives in terms of engaging in specialised support or encouragement to enrich people's lives. People did receive support from some other healthcare professionals, including GP's and district nurses where needed. One Healthcare professional told us, “We don’t always feel welcomed here. It has been nice today to be spoken to by the manager who seems genuinely interested and wants to engage more.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. Some people we spoke with wished to progress to enable them to move out of the service, but there was little evidence to show how this was going to be achieved and what support was needed.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People said that staff were good and allowed them their human rights and asked them for consent. The provider undertook assessments to determine people’s capacity and best interest decisions were made. These were currently under full review.