Westbury House

“Who the service is for”

“The service supports people with learning disabilities and/or autistic people. The people living at the service were older people.”

“Our view of the service”

“We carried out this assessment on 29 to 30 June 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ (RSRCRC) guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was being provided in line with this guidance and people were being supported to lead positive and dignified lives.”

“People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were aware of how to identify possible concerns and what action they needed to take to keep people safe. Staff knew how to raise concerns outside of the organisation if this was necessary. When incidents and accidents happened, staff reported these as appropriate. Action was taken to reduce the risk of incidents re-occurring. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them and they were kept informed of any changes to people’s support needs.”

“People’s physical and mental health needs had been risk assessed to ensure there were mitigations in place to keep people well and identify if they were becoming unwell. There was guidance for staff on how to support people to stay safe and what to do if they were becoming unwell. We did identify some discrepancies in the guidance for people’s support with constipation. However, this was addressed during the inspection, and monitoring systems were updated to prevent the concern from arising again.”

“There was enough staff to provide people with safe and effective support. Staff were well trained and knew how to provide support to people. Staff training was a mixture of online and face to face training. Staff told us they felt well supported by their managers and could raise issues or concerns if they needed to. Staff were recruited safely and underwent a supported probation period to ensure they were suitable for the role, and the role was right for them.”

“The environment was safe and suitable for people’s needs. Regular checks were undertaken to ensure the building was safe, such as gas safety checks. We did raise some concerns over the door to the basement being unlocked. However, there was a risk assessment in place regarding this, and the registered manager agreed to take action to reduce any risk further.”

“Most people had lived at the service for a long time. When people did move into the service, they were involved in the decision. Staff facilitated visits to the home as part of initial meetings and the assessment. This gave people the opportunity to meet each other and supported the person moving in to be involved in decision making about their future.”

“Staff understood how to monitor changes in people’s needs, and how to escalate these…”