We carried out a review of the data available to us about Victory Care Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Victory Care Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Victory Care Limited is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the manager, who was also the provider, confirmed the service was providing personal care to two adults.
CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Staff went through a recruitment process so that the provider only employed suitable staff, though one aspect of this process needed to be made more robust.
Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance for staff to follow. However, not all identified risks had been assessed or action taken to mitigate and reduce any identified risks. Staff were not always aware of how to reduce risk. People felt safe with staff from the service. Staff understood potential signs of abuse. People and relatives were involved in assessments of potential risks to safety and in identifying measures to keep them safe.
People received their medicines as prescribed. They were protected from the risk of infections through staff working practices. People had enough staff to meet their needs. Staff undertook induction training that supported them to have the knowledge and skills to do their job well and effectively meet people’s needs.
People were provided with care and support that ensured they had good nutrition and hydration. They had access to healthcare that maintained their health and wellbeing. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them to do this. The manager was following up with the appropriate agency on one aspect of staff practice that relatives had identified to protect their family member’s safety.
Staff knew people well. People had developed positive relationships with staff which helped to ensure good communication and support. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.
People or their representatives were involved and consulted when making changes to how their support was provided. Staff knew and understood the needs of the people using the service and care was provided based on their assessed needs. Staff were responsive to changes in people's needs to ensure people received timely intervention to maintain their health and well-being.
The person and the relative knew how to raise any concerns or make a complaint. The provider had a policy and procedure which involved investigation and solutions to put things right. This provided information about how these would be managed and responded to. This needed information about referral to another statutory body to approach if they were not satisfied with the investigation.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and support people experienced through quality assurance systems and processes to drive improvements in the service though some of these needed to be made more robust.
The person, a relative and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership of the service. The person and the relative said staff were very friendly and caring, and they had good relationships with them. The provider listened to feedback and acted to make improvements to the service. The service worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure people achieved good outcomes from their care and support.
Rating at last inspection:
The last inspection on 6 March 2016 rated the service as good.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
People and relatives we spoke with told us they thought the service ensured that people received safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) and staff understood their responsibilities in this area.
We saw that medicines were, in the main, supplied safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.
Risk assessments had not been comprehensively in place to protect people from risks to their health and welfare. Staff recruitment checks were in place to protect people from receiving personal care from unsuitable staff.
Staff had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs., though this had not always covered some relevant issues .
Staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choices about how they lived their lives , though assessments of people's capacity had not been in place to ensure people's ability to make decisions was comprehensively protected.
People and relatives we spoke with all told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring. They told us they had been involved in making decisions about how and what personal care was needed to meet care needs.
Care plans were individual to the people using the service to ensure that their needs were met, though they did not include all relevant information such as people's past histories.
People and relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns, they were confident these would be properly followed up. Records of complaints made had not always showed they had been properly investigated.
People and their relatives were satisfied with how the service was run. Staff felt they were supported in their work by the senior management of the service.
Management carried out audits in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure people were provided with a quality service.
A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
On this inspection we found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 Regulated Activities Regulations 2014 with regarding to providing safe care. You can see what action we have told the provided to take on the back of the full version of this report.
People and their relatives we spoke with said they thought the agency ensured that people received safe personal care. Staff had been trained in safeguarding (protecting people from abuse) but not all staff completely understood their responsibilities in this area.
Risk assessments were not fully detailed to assist staff are to support people safely.
We saw that medicines were given safely and on time, to protect people’s health needs.
Staff had not always been safety recruited to ensure they were appropriate to supply personal care to people.
Staff had training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to be able to meet people's needs, though more specialist awareness of people’s individual needs was not fully in place, which could have had a potential impact on meeting their needs.
Staff did not completely understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to allow, as much as possible, people to have effective choice about how they lived their lives.
People or their relatives told us that people had been assisted to eat and drink and everyone told us they thought the food prepared by staff was satisfactory.
Staff had awareness of people's health care needs so they were in a position to refer to health care professionals if needed.
People and their relatives we spoke with told us that staff were friendly, kind, positive and caring.
People, or their relatives, were involved in making decisions about how personal care was to be provided.
Care plans were not fully individual to the people using the service, as information about social care needs was lacking. There was a risk that this lack of information meant that people's individual needs may not always be met.
People or their relatives told us they would tell staff or management if they had any concerns and were confident any issues would be properly followed up.
People and their relatives were satisfied with how the agency was run by the registered manager. There were comments for improvement from staff to ensure there was good communication between management to always provide a quality service for people.
Management carried out audits and checks to ensure the agency was running properly. However, audits did not include the checking of all issues needed to provide a quality service.
People were involved to make decisions about the care and support they needed. People's needs were assessed and care plans detailed how care staff should deliver the care and support needed. Care staff sought consent before people were helped. One person who was supported with their medicines said, 'I don't mind them [care staff] making sure I've taken my tablets. It's good for me too that they check.'
People told us they were satisfied with the care and support received. One person said, 'The carers are very good. Yes, I do feel very safe with them.' Another said, 'They [care staff] are very good to me, very helpful and respect me. They make time for me and will be flexible if I need them at short notice. I have no complaints, just very happy with the service.'
Staff were screened to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. All new staff were trained for their job role.
The provider has a number of monitoring systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service people received. People's views were sought through reviews and satisfaction surveys. People were made aware of the complaints procedure and were confident that any concerns raised would be addressed.
People said that they had developed a good rapport with their care worker. They knew them by their first names, and felt confident to talk with them. People told us they felt safe and received good care. Two people told us 'The care is brilliant.' 'There are no missed calls and the care workers come on time.'
They told us they were satisfied with the care the agency provided. One person said, 'The carers help (my relative) get up and get washed and dressed, and then they come and help him go to bed at night. They do everything for (my relative). I can't fault them.'
People were not aware of when and how often their care needs were reviewed. One person told us, 'My care plan hasn't been updated and re-written, as far as I know, since I've been with the agency.' Although they did say their needs hadn't changed in this time.
They said they would speak out if they weren't happy with the service. One person told us, 'If I had any worries about the carers or I wasn't happy with something I would phone the people in charge, they have told me to do this and I would do it if I needed to.'
People told us they were happy with the staff team. One said, 'The carers are very good and I've no complaints about them.' Another told us,' The two carers I mainly have at the moment are really good and they are hardly ever late.' A relative said, 'The carers get on really well with (my relative) and he really likes them.'
They also said the providers contacted them regularly to get their views on the service. One told us, 'One of the providers visits me to see how things are. She either just turns up when staff are there, or she makes an appointment to see me on my own. She wants to make sure the carers are doing things right and that I am happy with them.'