You are here

Whiteley Village Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 9 October 2019

About the service

Whiteley Village is a large community with two purpose built residential services and a homecare service supporting people within their homes in the village. The Eliza Palmer Hub is a care home service for people who require support with nursing care and 30 people lived there. Ingram house provide a residential service and there were 27 people living in this part of the service. Whiteley Village provided home care to 60 people in their houses and flats within the village. In total, 117 people received support in the residential services and the community.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us there were not always enough staff to support them, particularly in the Eliza Palmer Hub. In this building and Ingram House, there were inconsistencies and shortfalls relating to risk management and medicines, but people told us they felt safe. There were activities for people who lived in the residential buildings but we found these were not always impacting positively upon them. We also found instances where information about how to meet people’s needs was inconsistent or lacked personalised details. People gave negative feedback about the food they were served and the provider was in the process of making improvements to this at the time of our visit.

The governance across the services was not robust enough to identify and address the shortfalls found at this inspection. We saw positive examples of work to involve people and communicate with them, but we received feedback this was not consistent where there had been recent changes to the service. The quality of the service received was not consistent across the different parts of the community. People who lived in the Eliza Palmer Hub and Ingram House were not receiving the same level of care and personalised support as people who lived in the community. People who lived in the community told us they received personalised and safe care from staff who arrived on time.

People’s healthcare needs were met and we saw evidence of staff working alongside professionals to meet their needs. Some records relating to people’s healthcare needs and health appointments were not consistent with care delivery. Staff asked for consent from people and had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but we found one instance where the correct process had not been followed, we received confirmation this was addressed after our visit.

People knew how to raise a complaint and despite sharing negative feedback with us, they told us they had productive meetings where they could raise these concerns. There were regular surveys and systems to communicate with people, relatives and staff. Complaints were documented and responded to and the provider analysed these for patterns and trends. There was a robust framework for accidents and incidents, to ensure these were escalated where required and monitored by the provider. Despite some inconsistencies in how end of life care was planned and delivered, the service had received accreditation in this area and we saw evidence of plans to develop and improve this area of the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

Good (Inspection Report Published 22 October 2016)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. However we had also been made aware of a specific incident, following which a person using the service died. This incident is subject to a criminal investigation which had not reached a conclusion at the time of this inspection. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

The information CQC received about the incident indicated concerns about the management of choking risks. This inspection examined those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern, but we did identify a need to

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 9 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 9 October 2019

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.