- Care home
Victoria Grand
Assessment report published 20 May 2025
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of Assessment: 28 January to 12 February 2025. The service is a residential care home providing support to older people, some of whom are living with dementia.
People were not always protected from the risk of harm because staff could not always provide constant monitoring that some people required. Staffing levels were based on a dependency tool, but people and staff felt there were insufficient staff on duty to meet their needs promptly; our observations confirmed this. The management of some laundry posed an infection risk. The home provided people with a nutritious diet and choices from the menu. Care was provided in a dignified manner, and people were encouraged with their independence. Information was provided in an accessible format according to people’s communication needs. Governance systems and audits had improved since the last assessment, but issues found at this inspection had not been identified through the provider’s processes. Recording within daily notes was not always accurate or contemporaneous. The provider worked well with a range of health and social care professionals. Medicines were managed safely. Staff received appropriate training and supervision to undertake their responsibilities. The provider was previously in breach of legal regulations.
Some improvements were found at this assessment, but the provider is in breach of 3 regulations relating to safe care and treatment, staffing, and good governance. Two regulations: safe care and treatment, and good governance are continuing breaches. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
People's experience of this service
People were not always protected from the risk of harm due to staffing levels which meant staff did not always have time to meet the needs of people. People spent long periods of time on their own because staff were not always readily available. Infection prevention and control processes were unsafe because dirty laundry was not always kept separate from clean laundry. Drinks were not always readily available, and, in some cases, water jugs were out of people’s reach. Activities were organised by a dedicated staff member, but care staff did not have time to spend with people, unless providing care. People received their medicines as prescribed, and had access to a range of healthcare professionals. Residents’ meetings enabled people to make suggestions about the running of the home, menu planning and activities. People told us they were looked after by kind and caring staff. Their consent to care was sought and people’s preferences were acknowledged and met by staff.