• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Westgate Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Community Services Offices, Brainkind Neurological Centre York, Bishopthorpe Road, York, YO23 1DE (01924) 266344

Provided and run by:
The Disabilities Trust

Assessment report published 29 April 2026

On this page

Caring

Good

15 April 2026

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Kindness, compassion and dignity

Score: 3

The provider always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. We observed staff during the inspection who were kind and respectful to people. We received positive feedback from people and their families about the staff. One person said, “Staff are friendly and treat us like family.” One family member said, “Staff are very caring, I have never had any problems. Everyone is happy.”

Treating people as individuals

Score: 3

The provider treated people as individuals however people’s care and support plans did not always reflect people’s needs and preferences. People’s culture, backgrounds and protected characteristics were considered.

More work was needed to ensure peoples care records reflected their preferences, however staff had built up good relationships with people and treat them as individuals. One staff member said, “We get to know the people really well.” Family members told us how staff ensured individualised care. One family member said, “[Staff] ensure that [person] has the person-centred care that they need and adapt what they do when his care needs change.”

Independence, choice and control

Score: 3

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.People were supported to have choice and make day to day decisions about their lives. For example, people chose when to get up, what to eat and how they wished to spend their time. Staff respected these wishes to ensure people had control. One staff member said, “We try to help people be independent and we help people do more day-to-day tasks themselves. We always ask the person to try first, then assist if needed. People always choose what they do.”

People had regular activities which staff supported them to attend. People were able to spend time with others if they wished, and visitors were welcomed within the service. One person told us, “We usually ring before visiting as [person] has such a busy schedule, we need to check to make sure [person] is in.”

Responding to people’s immediate needs

Score: 3

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.Staff observed people and knew them well so they could act quickly if they noticed someone in pain or if their condition had deteriorated. Care plans did not always reflect how people displayed anxiety or distress however staff could describe how they recognised this and how they acted to support that person.

Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Score: 2

The provider demonstrated commitment to staff wellbeing and actively encouraged it; however, additional support was required to resolve issues identified by employees. Managers communicated their concerns about workload to the provider, which were duly acknowledged. Nevertheless, the actions implemented to address these matters proved to be lengthy and required considerable time. The registered manager and deputy manager were accessible to staff by telephone and provided onsite support as required. However, team leaders expressed concerns about experiencing increased pressure stemming from limited engagement by senior leadership. This situation may adversely impact staff wellbeing.

Despite these concerns, the provider offered further opportunities and staff incentives to promote wellbeing. For instance, staff referenced annual leave buy-back schemes that were available for employees to utilise.