You are here

Victoria House (Wallasey) Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 16 October 2019

About the service

Victoria House (Wallasey) is a care home that provides accommodation for up to 56 people who need help with their personal care. At the time of the inspection 50 people lived in the home.

People's experience of using this service

At the last inspection, the provider was in breach of regulations 11, 17 and 18. People’s consent was not always appropriately obtained and there was a lack of good governance and staff training. At this inspection, the provider had taken sufficient action with regards to regulation 18 (staff training) but remained in breach of regulations 11 (Need for Consent) and 17 (Good Governance) of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Additional breaches of regulations 9 (person centred care) and 10 (privacy and dignity) of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 and regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009 (Part 4) were also identified.

During the inspection, the manager did not demonstrate that they were of the concerns we identified. They did not demonstrate they understood their regulatory and legal requirements with regard to the service. In addition the provider failed to have sufficient oversight of the service’s management.

There were no adequate or effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. This resulted in people being exposed to ongoing risks. For example, the providers fire safety arrangements were unsafe. People’s care plans were not sufficiently detailed to ensure people received safe, appropriate care and records showed people did not always receive the support they needed. Staff were kind and patient with people when providing support but they did not always ensure people’s privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

The management of medication was unsafe. There were no effective systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed or to ensure that medicines in the home could be accounted for. During our visit there were two doses of controlled drugs missing and two people’s medicines had run out.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice or the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).

Accident and incidents were not properly investigated to ensure that staff learned from these events to prevent them from happening again in the future. Records showed that people sometimes sustained accidental injury during the delivery of support. This suggested that staff did not always show due care when supporting people. Furthermore, where the provider was legally required to report accidents and incidents to CQC they had not always done so.

The premises and the facilities available to people who lived in their home were not always suitable or sufficient. For example, there was a lack of communal bathrooms, the garden was not secure for people to be able to use independently and the smoking room within the home was hazardous.

As a result of the above, service delivery failed to adhere to legal requirements or best practice in respect of people’s care. For example, NICE guidelines for the management of medication, health and safety guidance with regards to fire safety in care home, Department of Health infection control standards or MCA Code of Practice.

People received enough to eat and drink and told us the food and drink on offer was satisfactory. They had access to a range of activities and trips out in respect of their social and recreational needs and the atmosphere at the home was relaxed and homely. There were a range health and social professionals involved in people’s care.

Staff members employed at the service were recruited safely. The number of staff on duty was s

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 16 October 2019

The service was not safe.

Details are in our Safe findings below.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 16 October 2019

The service was not effective.

Details are in our Effective findings below.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 16 October 2019

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our Caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 16 October 2019

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our Responsive findings below.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 16 October 2019

The service was not well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.