CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at West Villa Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and there were enough staff to support people's needs. Inspectors also found some risk assessments and certain care records had not been consistently reviewed or completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider used audits, spot checks and staff supervision to monitor the service. Staff felt supported, complaints were handled appropriately and the service worked with other agencies.
What inspectors found, May 2022
West Villa Residential Home is rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and the home was well-led, but some risk and care records needed updating.
The inspection took place on 28 and 29 March 2022. One inspector and a person with experience of using or caring for someone in this type of service reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and quality checks. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health care professional.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People said they felt safe, received medicines on time and were supported by staff. There were enough staff, medicines were generally managed safely, infection control arrangements were suitable, and accidents and incidents were reviewed for learning.
Some records were not fully up to date. Risk assessments had not all been reviewed, thickener instructions were not always recorded consistently, and the lift inspection was overdue until the provider arranged one after the inspection. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, including its cleaning arrangements.
Enough staff
Inspectors saw people being supported promptly, and people gave positive feedback about staffing levels.
“There were enough staff to support people with their needs. We observed people were supported promptly with their care needs during our inspection.” from the report
Medicines generally managed safely
Medicine administration competencies had recently been checked and audits were completed every month.
“Medication was managed safely. Staff who administer medication had recently had their competencies checked.” from the report
Good oversight
The management team used audits and spot checks, including checks in the evening and at night, to monitor quality.
“The registered manager had systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Improved cleanliness
The home had acted on the previous recommendation about cleaning. Inspectors found no unpleasant odours during this inspection.
“At this inspection we found an appropriate cleaning regime in place, the provider had changed their cleaning products and there were no unpleasant odours during the inspection.” from the report
Working with health services
The home worked with other agencies, including on wound management and support after hospital discharge.
“The service work well with us in relation to wound management” from the report
Risk assessments not always reviewed
needs fixingSome risk assessments had not been reviewed recently. The registered manager updated them during the inspection and planned to develop more staff skills in completing them.
“Risk assessments in place had not consistently been reviewed.” from the report
Thickener records incomplete
needs fixingThe amount or consistency of thickener was not always recorded. Staff knew which people needed thickened drinks, but the electronic system did not always allow the information to be entered.
“The levels of thickener used by people, to help with swallowing difficulties and reduce the risk of aspiration, was not consistently recorded.” from the report
Lift inspection overdue
needs fixingThe lift had not been inspected within the required six-month period. The provider arranged an inspection after inspectors raised this, and no remedial work was needed.
“The lift at the service had not been inspected in line with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER).” from the report
Residents' meetings had stopped
minorResidents' meetings had stopped during the pandemic. The manager said they would be restarted.
“Residents' meetings had stopped during the pandemic. The registered manager explained these would be reintroduced.” from the report
- 01How often are risk assessments now reviewed, and who checks that they are up to date?
- 02How do you record the required consistency and amount of thickener for each person?
- 03When was the lift last inspected, and what system is now used to make sure future inspections are on time?
- 04Have residents' meetings restarted, and how are people's views recorded and acted on?
- 05What changes have been made to keep the improved cleaning arrangements in place?
This was a focused inspection that rated Safe and Well-led and included infection prevention and control; the other three key question ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2022 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, April 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; care had become safer and kinder, but cleaning, oversight and lasting improvements still needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 20 February and 3 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with seven people, four staff members, managers, the provider and a visiting professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files, accident records, training records and service records.
The home had made significant changes since the previous inspection. Risk assessments, staffing, medicines systems, care plans and safeguarding arrangements had improved. People were treated with kindness and respect, and inspectors rated Effective, Caring and Responsive as Good.
Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found unpleasant odours and stained or dirty furnishings in some areas. Some records still had gaps, and the provider could not yet show that improvements would be sustained.
The previous overall rating was Inadequate, and the home had been in Special Measures since September 2019. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations, was no longer rated Inadequate and had left Special Measures.
Improved safety systems
Risks were reviewed and care plans explained how people should be kept safe. Accidents and incidents were monitored more clearly, and staff shared important risks at handovers.
“Individual risk assessments had been reviewed and details of how to ensure people's safety was recorded in individual care plans.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, supported their choices and treated them with dignity. They were patient when people needed extra help.
“Staff spent time involving people in decisions about their care and support and they actively listened to what people were saying.” from the report
Person-centred care plans
Care plans had been rewritten with information from people, staff and relatives. They recorded preferences and advanced wishes for end of life care.
“New care plans had been developed for each person since the last inspection and they were clear and person-centred.” from the report
Better management and teamwork
There was a clearer management structure, more consistent handovers and better support for staff. Relatives and staff reported that the home had improved.
“A clearly defined management structure had been put in place since the last inspection and there had been a clear focus on addressing the regulatory breaches and improving care.” from the report
Cleaning and unpleasant odours
needs fixingSome corridors and bedrooms smelled unpleasant. Inspectors also found stained soft furnishings and food debris, and recommended that cleaning procedures be reviewed.
“Cleaning regimes were in place, but there were some parts of the home which had unpleasant odours, such as the main corridor and some people's bedrooms.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven to last
needs fixingThe provider had improved the service but could not yet show that the changes would be sustained. Some minor issues had not been found by the home’s own audits.
“The service was showing clear and significant signs of improving, although at the time of the inspection the provider was not able to demonstrate how improvements would be sustained.” from the report
Gaps in records and checks
needs fixingThere were minor gaps in medicines records, medicine storage temperature records and moving and handling competency records. One staff member’s reference checks were incomplete before they started work.
“There were some minor gaps in recording, such as with topical medicines and with room temperatures where medicine was stored.” from the report
Activities not always equal
minorActivities were organised, but some people were supported more than others. One person said they wanted to go out more and did not have the chance.
“The provider agreed to consider how people's individual recreation needs were met to be sure this was done fairly.” from the report
- 01What has been done to remove the unpleasant odours and clean or replace stained furnishings?
- 02How are medicines records and storage temperatures checked now, and how are any gaps dealt with?
- 03How do you check that all staff references and other recruitment checks are complete before people start work?
- 04How will you prove that the improvements found at this inspection are being sustained?
- 05How do you make sure every resident receives activities and opportunities to go out that match their wishes and needs?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous Inadequate rating and covered all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 April 2020 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 West Villa Residential Home
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 January 2011.
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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Wakefield
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
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.