CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Westerlands Care Village
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks, staffing, safeguarding, infection control and medicines were managed safely. They noted that monitoring the storage of some creams was inconsistent.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, choices and diets were assessed and care plans were updated. Most mealtime support was appropriate, but staff sometimes missed opportunities to encourage people or reduce anxiety.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not directly inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not directly inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management oversight and quality checks had improved. However, daily care records were not always completed consistently, and written follow-up after one incident was not recorded.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found improved, safe and caring support, with some records and mealtime support needing attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 12 and 13 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with staff, relatives, a friend and health professionals. They observed care, checked the home and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were managed, medicines were given safely, staffing had improved and people received care from trained staff. People had choices about meals and care, and staff worked with health professionals.
There were still some smaller shortfalls. Support and encouragement at some mealtimes could be better. Records about creams, daily care, learning from incidents and some care decisions were not always complete or clear. The provider was given a recommendation about keeping written records when something goes wrong.
The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published in January 2022. Inspectors found enough improvement for the home to no longer be in breach of regulations. This inspection only directly assessed Safe, Effective and Well-led. The other ratings carried over from the previous inspection.
Improved safety
Risks were assessed and reviewed, and staff understood how to keep people safe. The home was no longer in breach of the previous safe care regulation.
“Care plans and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and updated, and staff were knowledgeable about how to keep people safe and well.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff and improvements in the use and checking of agency staff. Staff received induction, training and supervision.
“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs and systems were in place to review and adjust staffing levels as needed.” from the report
Food and personal choices
People could choose meals and their dietary needs were catered for. Their weights were monitored and action was taken when concerns arose.
“People had a choice of meals each day and had contributed to the development of a new menu where their preferred meals were included.” from the report
Person-centred culture
Staff knew people's preferences and adjusted care to suit them. Relatives described the environment as friendly and welcoming.
“Staff provided person-centred care for people.” from the report
Listening to feedback
The home gathered views through meetings, questionnaires and a suggestions box. Changes were made in response to suggestions and shared through a 'You said, we did' board.
“Changes had been made to the service in line with people's suggestions and a 'You said, we did' board was used to keep people and staff updated with action taken.” from the report
Cream storage records
minorMedicines were generally given safely, but checks on the storage of some creams were inconsistent. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“Medicines were stored safely, though processes for monitoring the storage of some creams was inconsistent.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingMost mealtime support was suitable, but staff sometimes missed chances to encourage people or help with anxiety. Managers said they would monitor and address this.
“However, we saw staff missed some opportunities to provide encouragement and manage people's anxiety during a mealtime.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingDaily records were not always completed consistently or to the same standard. Some records of advice from health professionals also needed to be clearer.
“Daily records regarding care provided to people was not always consistently completed or to the same quality.” from the report
Written follow-up after incidents
needs fixingThe management team understood the need to be open when things went wrong, but written evidence of a follow-up apology was not available. CQC recommended reviewing the relevant systems.
“However, there were no records provided to show this had been followed up in writing.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people receive enough encouragement and reassurance during meals?
- 02How do you check that creams are stored and monitored consistently?
- 03How do you ensure daily care records are completed fully and to the same standard?
- 04Why are any bedroom doors locked, and how are these decisions recorded and reviewed?
- 05How do you record written apologies and follow-up when something goes wrong?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not directly inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 July 2023 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, January 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, cleanliness, choice and management oversight that needed to improve.
This was an unannounced focused inspection after concerns about risk management, medicines and nutrition. Inspectors visited on 9, 11 and 23 November 2021, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found serious window safety risks, some fire safety concerns and gaps in guidance after choking incidents. The home was not always clean, and records for some medicines and agency staff were incomplete. People did not always have enough choice about meals or receive care in line with their preferences and dignity.
The provider arranged action during the inspection, including improving window safety and commissioning a deep clean. Inspectors also found positive feedback about the new managers, support with healthcare appointments and appropriate best-interest decisions. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Support with healthcare
People were supported to attend healthcare appointments, and relatives said concerns were passed to the GP promptly.
“If there's any concerns straight away as soon as there's a problem they're on to the GP.” from the report
New management support
Staff said they felt supported by the new managers and believed things were improving.
“Staff felt well supported by the new managers and felt improvements where been made to the service.” from the report
Involvement in decisions
The home consulted people nominated to help with decisions and made appropriate applications under the deprivation of liberty safeguards.
“When people had nominated someone to be involved in decisions on their behalf the service consulted with them appropriately.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff understood safeguarding procedures and said they would report signs of abuse. People told inspectors they felt safe.
“Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and felt confident to report any signs of abuse.” from the report
Window and fire safety
seriousSome windows could open too wide, had broken frames or single-pane glass that could shatter. One bedroom door was wedged open, meaning it might not close during a fire.
“Risks in relation to window safety had not been thoroughly assessed or mitigated.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousSome rooms, carpets and equipment were not clean. The areas for putting on and removing protective equipment were also not organised safely.
“The risk of spread of infection was not effectively managed as the service was not always clean and tidy.” from the report
Person-centred meals and care
seriousMenus and other ways to offer meal choices were not always available. Staff practice during meals did not always protect people's dignity, and some distress was not identified or addressed.
“People were not always supported with their meals in a person-centred manner.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits failed to identify several problems, and action was not always taken promptly when issues were found. Records and learning from incidents were not consistently complete.
“Systems in place were not effective at identifying and addressing areas we found at this inspection.” from the report
Agency staff records and support
needs fixingThe home used many agency staff, including on some night shifts. Records about agency workers were not always available or robust, and CQC recommended getting advice about their support and monitoring.
“We recommended the provider seeks advice from a reputable source regarding the support and quality monitoring of agency staff.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make all windows safe, and how has the risk from the wedged-open bedroom door been addressed?
- 02What has changed since the inspection to keep rooms, carpets, equipment and protective equipment areas clean?
- 03How are people now offered genuine choices about meals, including people with specific nutritional needs?
- 04How do you check that care plans reflect people's preferences and that staff protect dignity during meals?
- 05What action has been taken to improve agency staff checks, induction, supervision and night-time attentiveness?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 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.
Every inspection of Westerlands Care Village
9 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
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.