CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Wesley Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found concerns about safety, dignity, decision-making and management oversight.
This was the first inspection of the newly registered home. Inspectors visited on four dates between 19 May and 25 August 2021. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home supported seven people in individual flats adapted to their environmental and sensory needs. Inspectors found some positive practice. Staff generally wanted good outcomes for people, care plans recorded people's needs and medicines were mostly managed safely.
However, people were not always protected from harm or treated with dignity. Risks and incidents were not always managed well. Some important decisions were made without enough involvement from representatives. Complaints, safeguarding notifications and management checks were not handled properly.
All five areas were rated Requires Improvement. This means the home was not consistently providing safe, effective, caring, responsive or well-led support. The CQC required improvements and planned to monitor progress with the local authority and return for another inspection.
Individual care information
Care records described people's support needs, preferences and sensory needs. Positive behaviour support plans included less restrictive ways for staff to respond.
“Care records detailed people's support needs, preferences and sensory needs.” from the report
Staff intentions
Inspectors found that staff were generally kind and wanted good outcomes for people, although the report also identified a poor culture in some areas.
“Staff overall wanted the best outcomes for people and were passionate in their approach.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were generally managed safely and consistently. The provider understood national guidance about reviewing and reducing some medicines where safe.
“Medicines were managed safely and consistently overall.” from the report
Partnership working
The home worked with health and social care professionals on areas such as risk management, protection plans and sensory assessments.
“We saw evidence of partnership working with other agencies.” from the report
Risks and incidents
seriousThe home did not always identify lessons from incidents or take enough action to prevent them happening again. Inspectors also found a high number of staff injuries and concerns about staff experience and deployment.
“Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed. However, lessons learnt had not always been identified and the provider had not always taken appropriate action to reduce the likelihood of repeat occurrences.” from the report
Safeguarding and governance
seriousSome safeguarding incidents were not reported to the CQC when required. Management systems did not provide enough oversight of risks, complaints and planned improvements.
“Failure to have systems in place to maintain an appropriate level of oversight was a breach of Regulation 17 (Good governance) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Dignity and involvement
seriousPeople were not always treated respectfully during personal care or supported to take part in decisions. Representatives were not always consulted about significant decisions.
“People's dignity had not always been promoted. For example, where staff supported one person with personal care, this was not always done in a dignified and respectful manner.” from the report
Staff skills and consistency
needs fixingStaff knowledge was uneven, including knowledge of autism, the Mental Capacity Act and epilepsy. Two different physical intervention models were in use while training was incomplete.
“As all staff had not yet received the training in the new model, this meant there were two models in use at the time of the inspection.” from the report
Food and drink records
needs fixingRecords did not always show accurately how much people drank, and there were no recommended daily fluid amounts for staff to monitor.
“Records lacked the detail required for staff to effectively monitor people's fluid intake.” from the report
Complaints and end of life planning
needs fixingThe complaints log did not clearly record what action was taken. People's end of life wishes had not been explored or recorded, although the provider said it had started to address this after the inspection.
“The complaints log did not detail the actions taken to resolve complaints.” from the report
- 01How are behaviour-related risks, staff injuries and repeat incidents monitored now, and what changes have been made since this inspection?
- 02How are representatives involved in significant decisions, and how do you record best-interest decisions?
- 03What training and supervision do staff receive in autism, positive behaviour support, the Mental Capacity Act and physical intervention?
- 04How are complaints and safeguarding concerns recorded, investigated and reported to the CQC when required?
- 05How do you monitor fluid intake, end of life wishes, dignity during personal care and the use of sensory communication plans?
This was the first planned inspection covering all five key questions, with a return visit on 25 August 2021 because of concerns about people's living conditions and support; infection prevention and control was also checked under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 2021 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 Wesley Place
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 February 2020.
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.