Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Bere Peninsula Care

West View

72 Broad Park Road, Bere Alston, Yelverton, PL20 7DU

Not yet rated

Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this service, which is usual for a new registration.

The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in care planning, medicines and oversight, although people described kind care and felt safe.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 and 10 October 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, recruitment files, training records and quality checks.

The home did not always identify or manage risks safely. Records did not consistently reflect people's changing needs, including weight loss, low fluid intake and diabetes monitoring. Medicines were usually given as prescribed, but storage checks, opening dates and some guidance for staff were missing.

Inspectors also found that mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not always completed for restrictions such as bed rails and sensor mats. The home's systems for checking quality had failed to find these problems. The ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led were all Requires Improvement.

The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published in 2017. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff and care, and the provider said improvements were being made.

What inspectors praised
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, including references and DBS checks, were completed before staff started.

    People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs.from the report
  • Kind relationships

    People and relatives generally felt happy and safe, and described the care and staff positively.

    The staff are wonderful, I'm looked after very wellfrom the report
  • Health support

    The home worked with health professionals, including a weekly GP visit and community nurses when needed.

    The service had good working relationships with healthcare professionals.from the report
  • Respectful mealtimes

    Inspectors saw a calm mealtime where staff asked before helping, offered extra portions and supported people to eat independently.

    We observed there was a calm atmosphere during mealtimes with staff respectfully asking people if they needed support before intervening.from the report
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that infection risks, visitors, protective equipment and the premises were being managed appropriately.

    We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Health risks not followed up

    serious

    Weight loss, low fluid intake and missed diabetes checks were not always acted on promptly. This created a risk of avoidable harm.

    People were not always protected from the risk of unsafe care as their care needs and associated risks had not been routinely assessed, updated and monitored.from the report
  • Medicines checks

    serious

    Medicine storage temperatures were not recorded every day. Some as-required medicines lacked guidance, and liquids and creams were not always dated when opened.

    People's medicines were not always managed safely.from the report
  • Restrictions and consent

    serious

    Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing for some restrictions, so the home could not show that people's rights were protected.

    Some people had restrictions place upon them to protect them from harm such as, sensor alarm mats to alert staff when people walked alone or bed rails in place to stop them falling from bed.from the report
  • Weak quality monitoring

    serious

    The home's audits and checks did not identify the problems found by inspectors, including gaps in care records, medicines management and risk monitoring.

    Quality assurance and governance systems to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service provided to people were either not in place, not being completed or were not robust enough to ensure people were protected from the risk of harm.from the report
  • Training and supervision gaps

    needs fixing

    The home had identified gaps in staff training and formal supervision, and was putting an improvement plan in place.

    However, there were gaps in the staffs' training.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are you now checking and responding to weight loss and low fluid intake?
  2. 02How do you make sure diabetes checks are completed as set out in each person's care plan?
  3. 03How are medicine storage temperatures, opening dates and as-required medicine instructions checked?
  4. 04How do you complete mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions before using bed rails or sensor mats?
  5. 05What changes have been made since the warning notices, and how can I see evidence that they are working?

The report gives ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led only; it does not give ratings for Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of West View

3 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at West View

  2. April 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. August 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. July 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. April 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. March 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Nearby

Other care homes near Yelverton

Woodlands

Gunnislake, PL18 · 4.3 km
Good
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Roborough House

Plymouth, PL6 · 6.8 km
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 3 years agocare home