Victoria Grand

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

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 as good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 62 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People told us of the kindness and patience of staff. One person said, “Staff look after me very well; it’s a lovely place.” A relative told us they had no concerns and said, “I feel Mum is much safer now which gives me peace of mind. I see Mum being treated with respect by staff who are kind, and Mum really likes the staff. I can’t fault them.”

We observed people engaged well with the activities person, who was positive, respectful and treated people with respect and dignity. We observed good interactions between everyone who engaged in a quiz and games in the lounge.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care and support met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People told us they were well looked after. One person said staff were kind and made them feel safe; they had no concerns. With regard to meals, the menu was planned by the provider and registered manager, but the cook asked people about their dietary preferences and tried to incorporate these into meals. For example, if people did not like the options on the menu at a particular meal, then they could choose to have an omelette or sandwiches.

The registered manager told us, “It is people-led. We offer breakfast when people get up, we give people choices during the day, what to wear, what to eat, what they want to do. We look at people as individuals, their past history and how they want to spend their day. One person likes gardening, so she has plants on her windowsill.”

People’s cultural and religious needs were catered for, although no-one had any particular needs in this regard at the time of this inspection.

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 encouraged to be as independent as possible and were gently encouraged by staff to do things for themselves, such as brushing their teeth and hair, and washing. A relative told us their family member often used to get up during the night, was at risk of falls, and so they needed staff to be vigilant. Their family member had no concerns about staff acting promptly when they needed support, and their call bell was answered in a timely fashion. We were told by staff that people were encouraged to fold their laundry, with washing and person care. There were opportunities through organised activities for people to do cooking where they could measure ingredients for a cake, for example, which was then cooked and enjoyed.

There were no restrictions on people receiving their relatives and friends. No-one went out independently but were reliant on staff or their relatives if they wanted to go out. People could also stay in touch with their families by telephone or mobile, or through social media.

The provider did not always listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People’s immediate needs were not always responded to in a timely manner. We observed 1 person looked quite dishevelled during the morning. Their bed had been poorly made and the bedlinen appeared old and worn. Daily notes for this person recorded they were dressed at 13.24, although they had got out of bed some time before that. The person said, “I hate it here; there’s nothing for me anymore.” Their TV remote was not working, and staff did not provide this person with any activity that they could do whilst sitting in their bedroom. Between 11.00 and 12.30, we observed this person remained on their own. Although the activity timetable stated people had 1:1 time with the activities person on Tuesday mornings, the activities person had gone out and was not available until the afternoon.

Due to the levels of staffing, people who stayed in their rooms did not engage with staff much except when they required personal care or at mealtimes. This meant they were left on their own for periods of time, so any immediate needs were not met by staff. For example, 1 person’s care plan noted they preferred to stay in their room, but staff should encourage and support them to come downstairs during the day. It further noted this person would like staff to engage and interact with them. However, we observed staff spent little time with this person and did not encourage them to come downstairs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff felt supported by the management team and told us they were able to share any concerns during supervision meetings, they were supported to provide feedback.

The registered manager explained there was an open-door policy, and staff were free to come and talk with them at any time. The registered manager said, “I attend handover meetings and staff meetings. We discuss any concerns. I accept and investigate grievances.”