Westcliff Lodge Limited

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating 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. The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to person-centred care. The service was in breach of this regulation at the last assessment. This meant there was a continued breach of legal regulation.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The initial assessment of people’s needs lacked detail, and it was not always clear how people or those important to them had been involved in reviewing information to ensure it fully reflected their individual needs and preferences.

The service was not always able to evidence how people were involved in the planning and delivery of their care and treatment including what was important and mattered to them. Information relating to people’s eating and drinking support needs was not always accurate and guidelines from relevant health professionals such as the speech and language therapist were not always accessible.

The service worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. Health professionals told us staff and managers knew people well and engaged positively with relevant services to provide consistent support.

The service did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. The service did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People’s care plans did not always demonstrate how they were being supported to manage their health through regular health checks and reviews. For example, people’s eyesight and hearing care plans did not always document how or when appointments should be made or what support people required.

The service 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. The language used in people’s care records did not demonstrate a focus on what they could achieve. Guidelines referred to people being ‘unable to participate’ or ‘having no abilities in this area’. People’s health monitoring charts were not always robustly reviewed to ensure people received good outcomes.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment. We observed staff asking people for their consent. Appropriate documentation was in place to demonstrate how people’s decision making was being supported.