CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Priory Westfield View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk records and medicines given as prescribed. The home was clean and equipment was safe and well maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans and risk assessments were detailed and regularly reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful, and supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed regularly. People were supported to maintain relationships, communicate their needs, take part in activities and raise concerns.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive management, regular staff support and effective quality checks. Feedback from people, relatives and professionals was used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Priory Westfield View was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only a minor carpet issue noted.
The CQC carried out a planned inspection visit on 27 June and 3 July 2019. One inspector spoke with two people living at the home, one relative and three staff members. The inspector also checked care and medicine records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as happy and well cared for. Staff knew people well, supported their independence and treated them with dignity and respect.
The home had detailed care plans, safe medicine systems, enough staff and suitable training. People were supported to make choices, keep relationships, take part in activities and access health professionals. A bedroom carpet needed replacing, but this had been arranged by the second visit.
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and understood their personalities, needs and preferences. People were treated with dignity and supported in a person-centred way.
“People were cared for and supported by staff that were kind, patient and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained detailed information about people's choices and needs. Staff supported people to make decisions and remain independent.
“Care plans were person-centred and were reviewed on a regular basis.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
The home had risk information, enough staff and safe recruitment arrangements. Medicine records showed people received medicines as prescribed, and staff had regular checks of their competence.
“Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely and securely.” from the report
Good management
The registered manager and staff used quality checks, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and support improvements.
“Systems and process were in place to oversee the service and governance systems drove improvements in the quality of the service.” from the report
Bedroom carpet needed replacing
minorOne bedroom carpet required replacement during the inspection. The manager had arranged for this to be done the following week.
“One bedroom carpet required replacing and on our second visit the registered manager had arranged for this to be completed the following week.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative to remain independent with daily living, shopping and cooking?
- 02How do you manage risks linked to my relative's health conditions, and how often are the risk assessments reviewed?
- 03What training and competency checks do staff receive for supporting people with medicines?
- 04How would you support my relative to take part in activities and maintain relationships with family and friends?
- 05How do you use feedback from residents and relatives to make improvements?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with evidence gathered from two people, one relative, three staff members and a range of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, December 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and supervision arrangements to improve.
This was an announced inspection on 1 December 2016. It was the first inspection since the home registered with the CQC. Inspectors spoke with the person using the service, the registered manager and staff. They also contacted a family member, observed care, and checked care, staff and management records.
The home supported one person at the time, although it was registered for up to three adults with a mental health condition or learning disability. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe recruitment, risk assessments, safe medicines management and staff who understood safeguarding.
Care was described as kind and respectful. The person was involved in decisions, supported to be independent, helped to keep in touch with family and offered activities suited to their interests. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw trust and friendly communication between the person and staff. Staff respected privacy and supported the person's choices.
“We observed that staff displayed kindness and empathy towards the person using the service.” from the report
Building independence
The person was supported with shopping, household tasks, cooking and budgeting. This was intended to build life skills while preserving choice and independence.
“This ensured the person retained their independence as much as possible whilst learning essential life skills, such as budgeting, housekeeping and cooking.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included the person's history, interests, preferences and routines. Staff helped the person choose activities and keep in touch with family and friends.
“The care plans we looked at were written in a person centred way.” from the report
Safe medicines and premises
Inspectors found medicines were safely stored, given on time and recorded correctly. Fire safety, equipment checks and emergency arrangements were also in place.
“We saw that medicines were stored safely, obtained in a timely way so that the person did not run out of them, administered on time, recorded correctly and disposed of appropriately.” from the report
Supervision was not always formal
needs fixingStaff received supervision, but some support happened through informal meetings that were not recorded. The manager said formal supervision would be held more regularly.
“At present, because the staff group was very small, there were a lot of informal face-to-face meetings that were not recorded.” from the report
Quality information was not home-specific
minorThe provider's annual quality report combined information from different services. This made it less useful for families wanting to understand this home on its own.
“Each year the registered provider produced a clinical governance report for the company, however this did not distinguish between the different services within the company so was of little use for any person or family wishing to know about Priory Westfield View.” from the report
- 01How often are staff now receiving formal, recorded supervision, and what happens when concerns are identified?
- 02How would staffing and management arrangements change if the home supported three people rather than one?
- 03How do you make sure care plans and risk assessments remain up to date when my relative's needs change?
- 04Can you show us quality information that relates specifically to this home rather than the wider provider?
- 05How would my relative be supported to make choices, stay in contact with family and build daily living skills?
This was an announced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions; it was the first visit since registration and one person was using the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 2016 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Priory Westfield View
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 June 2015.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.