Victoria Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider worked openly and transparently with relevant agencies and staff. Staff told us, “We also have regular staff meetings which help everyone stay on the same page.”

The registered manager and senior management team had a strong focus on improving outcomes for people and meeting their individual needs. When speaking with staff it was clear they shared this culture and values.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with openness and honesty.

The registered manager described how supported they felt by the provider’s leadership team. Staff spoke very positively about the registered manager and clinical lead, saying “They always have time to listen (even though I know they are extremely busy!).”

People and families told us they found the registered manager approachable; however, they did say they did not often see them.

Staff who had been there many years said that the registered manager and clinical lead “were the best management Victoria Care Home had.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a policy in place informing staff of the procedures around how to speak up or whistleblow, it contained details for both internal and external contacts.

Staff we spoke with said they would feel comfortable to raise concerns if needed.

The provider ensured that people had an opportunity to feedback via surveys for both staff and people, these were analysed, results shared, and actions identified.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff described to us how supportive the registered manager was and took into consideration their wellbeing. We were also told about the opportunities for growth and development within the home.

Staff described how management treated staff equally and “make the working environment and the rota conducive for staff.”

The provider had robust policies in place to support staff, such as equality and diversity policies and procedures to ensure staff were not subjected to discrimination against protected characteristics.

The provider did not always have good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider undertook their own quality audits at home and fed back to the registered manager, who then add any areas of improvement to their action plan to be addressed. We saw that from one to the next improvements had been made.

Whilst audits were in place to monitor the care delivered, they were not effective enough to pick up the concerns we had found as described in this report. Additionally, we had found confidential personal information which was stored in a place that could easily be accessed by people and visitors.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The registered manager explained how they had worked with a charity to develop an accessible garden for people living at the home to enjoy, cultivate and hold garden parties to further involve the community.

During the upcoming festive season there were plans for more community involvement with local schools and the church.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe and effective practice.

The provider had recognised the need for, and implemented, a new digital medication platform to enhance the effectiveness of the digital care planning system they used to allow staff to spend more time with people by reducing the time spent on systems.

There were ‘Resident’s Meetings’ held for people to attend and feedback any improvements they would like, we saw evidence of an action plan developed from these.

The provider had a home improvement plan, from which lessons learnt were also developed. The registered manager was very responsive to our feedback and implemented changes promptly to improve care delivery.