You are here

Vancouver House Requires improvement

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

About the service

Vancouver House is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 32 adults with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. The accommodation is in four units over two floors. At the time of the inspection there were 31 people living at the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a purpose-built property. Despite the size of the building exceeding best practice guidelines, it was evident that people received person centred support. Staff were discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

During our last inspection, we identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulated Activities 2014. These breaches related to consent and to quality processes. This meant that Vancouver House was not providing effective care to people in line with their consent, and was poorly led and managed.

At this inspection, although we found significant improvements had been made and the breaches had been met, the service required further time to embed safe and effective practices and to demonstrate consistency of those practices.

People's consent and capacity were managed appropriately. This meant that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Since the last inspection, a new registered manager had been appointed. People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the registered manager. They told us how the culture and atmosphere of the service had improved since the manager's arrival.

The new manager was taking appropriate and proactive action to uncover and address the issues which had developed at the service. Governance processes had been stripped back and re-developed. More appropriate systems had been introduced which helped to monitor the safety and quality of care being provided.

The registered manager had also introduced robust systems to identify and analyse any risks and potentially unsafe practices.

Staff had received additional training in safeguarding and were knowledgeable about how to recognise and report on any abusive practices. This helped keep people safe from harm.

Safe recruitment practices were in place for staff. The service ensured that any potential employees were safe to work with vulnerable people.

We observed positive and warm interactions between staff and people living at the service. It was clear that staff knew the needs of the people they supported. People were encouraged and supported to be a part of both their local and wider community.

Medicines were managed in a safe way. Infection prevention control practices were practised by staff and the service appeared clean and well maintained.

People were able to decorate their room to their own tastes meaning that each room was unique. New kitchens had recently been installed to aid people’s independence. The registered manager informed us that there were plans in place to improve the service to make the environment more stimulating and homely.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was Requires impro

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 3 April 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.