Westerleigh

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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

The provider had in place a range of processes to involve people and relatives in determining care. Relatives told us they were actively involved in care and the provider listened to their views.

This service scored 71 (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.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had in place processes to involve people and their relatives in care decisions and the running of the home. The home had undertaken a residents’ feedback process to assess the quality of meals, the range of food provided as well as the quality of care at the home. Overall, feedback was positive.

Relatives told us they were able to attend meetings regarding the home as well as communicate any issues in other ways, including speaking directly to the registered manager. Comments included, “I go to the relatives’ meetings – the manager attends and will listen and take action where she can”

Where people had specific communication needs then staff worked hard to ensure people were able to express themselves. Staff spoke in detail about how they approached people, and in particular how they tried to take time to involve and reassure people living with dementia. Other people used alternative communication systems. For example, one person, who had limited verbal ability, used a white board or signed to express their needs. One person told us, “My [relative] has Alzheimer’s so will often forget names. But I've witnessed when they have called the carers their angels and I can see how they will chat with them. I have watched my [relative], when I'm there, responding to the nice manner the carers have, and I’ve watched them when they don't realise I'm there.”

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.