Westmorland Court Nursing and Residential Home

We undertook this assessment to follow up on breaches in legal regulations found during our last assessment and due to receiving concerns in relation to care and treatment, including delays in reporting infection outbreaks and continence management.

At our last assessment in July 2025 (published 05 August 2025), the provider was in breach of the legal regulation safe care and treatment in relation to the use of medicines, and how people’s risks and environmental risks were managed. The provider was also in breach of legal regulations in relation to the governance of the service including governance systems for managing medicines, people's risks and environmental risks. At this assessment the service was no longer in breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. However, we found a continued breach in relation to the governance systems at this service.

Medicines safety required urgent improvement. We found examples of time‑critical medicines not administered correctly, a lack of person‑centred guidance for ‘when required’ and variable‑dose medicines, gaps in records relating to thickened fluids, and unsafe or unevidenced practice for topical preparations. Medicines audits had not identified these concerns. The care environment was clean but not always safely maintained. Fire safety had improved since the last inspection. Care planning and risk management were inconsistent. Although assessments were generally person‑centred, some identified needs did not translate into care plans or risk assessments. This included gaps in diabetes, continence, oral health and behaviour‑related risks. However, care and support were person centred, with staff promoting privacy, dignity and a sense of safety. We observed respectful interactions and staff involving people in activities. Infection prevention and control arrangements were effective, the environment was clean, and we observed safe moving and handling.

The provider gathered feedback from people and relatives, and they were involved in developing care plans. People were supported to maintain their health and wellbeing and had good access to healthcare professionals. Relatives gave positive feedback about communication and GP involvement. However, mental capacity and best‑interest processes were not always followed or recorded consistently.

Governance arrangements were not robust enough to reliably identify and address risks. Leaders acted promptly when concerns were raised during the inspection, but internal audits and oversight had not detected significant issues in key areas. Staff and leaders were receptive to feedback, safety incidents were reported and discussed, and learning was shared through regular meetings. People and relatives told us they felt safe and involved, and visiting professionals described proactive and collaborative working. Training and supervision were in place, and the provider had introduced an electronic care management system to strengthen record‑keeping and oversight.

Since the inspection, the provider has told us they have taken comprehensive action in response to concerns raised during the inspection.

In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.