We inspected Westport Care Centre on 13 November 2018. This was an unannounced inspection.

At the last inspection which took place on 9 and 10 May 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Westport Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Westport Care Centre is a residential care home and provides personal care and dementia care for 42 older people. The home is a large detached building and the accommodation is set out over four floors.

There was a registered manager at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We received positive feedback from people and their relatives about the caring and friendly attitude of staff. Staff demonstrated that they knew people well and understood their preferences and how they wanted to be cared for. Feedback about the registered manager was also positive, with relatives telling us they would not hesitate to approach her if they wanted to discuss anything. The registered manager had an open-door policy where people felt able to come and speak with her if they wanted to.

There were robust recruitment procedures in place and newly employed staff received a through induction to the service. Staff training was up to date and this was achieved through refresher training that was offered on a regular basis. Staff told us they felt supported and were able to provide feedback through supervisions and feedback surveys.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People received appropriate support in relation to their medicines and general health care needs. Care plans supported this practice.

The service was proactive in responding to complaints or any incidents and accidents. Learning took place following these which demonstrated the providers’ commitment to improving.

The provider worked collaboratively with external stakeholders to provide joined up care to people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We inspected Westport Care Centre on 9 and 10 May 2016, the inspection was unannounced. Our last inspection took place on 4 June 2013 and we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we checked.

Westport Care Centre is a residential care home and provides personal care and dementia care for 42 older people. The home is a large detached building and the accommodation is set out over four floors. All the bedrooms have en-suite bathrooms in addition to shared bathrooms. There was a large garden and comfortable lounge areas.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff had a good understanding of the safeguarding procedures and followed protection plans to minimise the risk of harm to people. Prevention measures had been put in place to minimise future re-occurrences of any incidents.

Thorough recruitment checks were completed to assess the suitability of the staff employed.

The home had good infection control measures in place. Regular testing and servicing of equipment was carried out.

People’s medicines were managed safely by trained staff. There was a robust procedure in place for the administration, storage and disposal of medicines.

People were supported to eat a well-balanced diet and their nutritional and hydration needs were met.

Staff received training that was reflective of the needs of the people who used the service.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with relevant legislation and guidance on best practice. People had access to healthcare and had no difficulty accessing support with their health care needs.

The provider held ‘my special days’, to help best understand how the staff could meet people’s wishes.

People were included in specific activities to help reduce social isolation and loneliness.

The registered manager promoted a work culture that was family orientated and that put people first. Relatives and people spoke positively about staff that supported them in the home.

Relatives’ discussions were held and people were informed of changes to the service, people’s views were sought on how their care should be delivered.

The service benchmarked best practice to review the delivery of care against current guidance. Complaints had been responded to appropriately when they were raised.

We have made a recommendation about recording person centred care in people’s care records.

One person using the service told us, “I get as much choice as I need really, they just let me get on with it.”. This person felt that staff respected their privacy and treated them with dignity. The person went on to say, “staff knock on my door before entering, they always knock, and they don’t just burst in.”. Another person told us this was, “the best home I have ever lived in”. They said, “I talk to [the home manager] a lot, she always has time to talk to me.”.

We asked people how well staff support them. One person told us, “staff are really helpful in that respect, if I am stuck [with lack of transport] then staff will help me which is great.” Another person told us, “the staff have been marvellous.” They also said "sometimes I can be a bit unsteady on my feet, staff always take their time with me, I have a great respect for staff here.” A relative told us they are were happy with how their relative was cared for and the communication they had with staff. They felt their relative was safe and said, “the slightest little thing and they are on the phone to let me know.”

Meals met the nutritional needs of people using the service and they were provided with enough to drink.

Medicine were administered safely and audited to ensure that the procedures staff used remained effective.

Staff were well trained and had regular opportunities to keep up to date with core skills and to seek further qualifications.

People told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care. We also observed an evening meal and took note of the quality and choice of food available. This was because this inspection was part of a themed inspection programme to assess whether older people living in care homes are treated with dignity and respect and whether their nutritional needs are met.

The inspection team was led by a CQC inspector joined by an “expert by experience”, people who have experience of using services and who can provide that perspective, and a professional advisor.

Generally, the people that we spoke to praised the level of care that they received in the home, and we observed numerous examples of people being cared for and treated in a respectful fashion.

However, there were examples where we observed people not being helped to make choices about their care, where opportunities for personal interaction with people using the service were missed and where people were spoken to in a brusque fashion. In addition, some people (in particular those with significant communication difficulties) were not given enough time to understand or respond to staff when asked what they wanted to eat.

Residents who spoke with us said that they were able to talk to members of staff privately about their individual needs. One resident described how the staff helped them speak to their relative, who lives far away, on the telephone each day. Residents said that staff show respect for their individual religious beliefs, as well as the staff acting in a pleasant and respectful fashion towards them. They praised their helpful nature and willingness to talk and listen to residents.