Westfield House

The provider carried out references and criminal record checks when recruiting staff.

“Staff were recruited safely. The provider requested references from previous employment and the employees' Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) status had been checked.” from the report

Inspectors were assured about several infection prevention arrangements, including preventing visitors from spreading infections and responding to infection risks.

“We were assured that the provider was responding effectively to risks and signs of infection.” from the report

People were supported to see GPs and other health professionals, including speech and language therapy services.

“Care records showed people were supported to access the GP and other healthcare services, such as speech and language therapy.” from the report

The home allowed visitors without restrictions at the time of the inspection.

“The home was open for visitors with no restrictions in accordance with the current guidance.” from the report

Known risks, including distress, falls, injuries and unsafe moving and handling, were not properly managed. Staff were seen pulling a person up by their clothing, and another person was not supervised despite known risks of injury.

“The lack of proper risk assessment, risk management plans and care plans exposed people using the service to risks of avoidable harm.” from the report

Staffing levels and deployment did not consistently meet people's needs. People were left without enough help with meals, drinks, personal care, repositioning and supervision.

“The provider had failed to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff deployed to support people to stay safe and meet their needs.” from the report

Some as-required medicines did not have clear instructions, stock records were inaccurate, and covert medicines were not supported by recorded best-interest decisions.

“The provider had failed to ensure the proper and safe management of medicines.” from the report

Staff had only basic training and lacked the knowledge and skills to support people with complex dementia and distressed behaviour safely.

“The provider had failed to ensure that staff received training, and supervision as is necessary to enable them to carry out their duties.” from the report

Relatives and other people had given consent without the required legal authority. DoLS conditions were not consistently followed, and staff did not consistently apply the Mental Capacity Act.

“The provider had failed to ensure care and treatment was provided with consent of the relevant person and to act in accordance with The Mental Capacity Act 2005.” from the report

Audits and checks did not identify serious problems with care, staffing, risks, records or legal requirements. There was no registered manager in post.

“The provider had failed to ensure adequate systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the care provided.” from the report