We carried out a review of the data available to us about Victoria Royal Beach 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 Victoria Royal Beach, you can give feedback on this service.
Victoria Royal Beach is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 20 people with a range of care needs, including frailty of old age and dementia. At the time of the inspection, 15 people were living at the home. The home accommodates people in one adapted building.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and their relatives felt the home provided a safe environment. People’s risks were identified and assessed, with guidance for staff on mitigating risks, which was followed. Staffing levels were enough to meet people’s needs. Medicines were managed safely. The home was clean and smelled fresh.
People were positive about the skills and experience of staff who supported them. People and their relatives were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care. A relative said, “We have been involved in care planning. A new format was put in place and this was explained to us”. Staff completed a range of training to meet people’s care and support needs and received regular supervision.
People were supported to have a healthy diet and with their nutrition and hydration needs. The lunchtime meal was enjoyed and special diets were catered for. People were complementary about the food on offer and could choose from a varied menu. A relative said, “The food appears good and [named person] has never complained. It’s clear choices are offered”.
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.
People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well. People were treated with dignity and respect. One person said, “The staff are all lovely and know how to look after people”.
People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs. Activities were organised and a range of entertainers visited the home. People could spend the rest of their lives at the home, if their needs could be met and this was their wish.
People felt the provider and management team were approachable and friendly. One person said, “It’s a well-run home. Staff know what they are doing. The manager is on holiday at the moment; she is very helpful to residents and staff. The owner joins in with the life of the home”. Residents’ meetings took place and feedback was welcomed.
Staff felt supported by the management team in their roles. Staff meetings took place and enabled staff to reflect on their working practice and to discuss any issues or concerns.
A system of audits monitored and measured all aspects of the home and were used to drive improvement. The home worked proactively with health and social care professionals.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was Good (published 17 January 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The last inspection took place on 19 October 2015. As a result of this inspection, we found the provider in breach of two regulations, one relating to safe care and treatment and the other associated with good governance. We asked the provider to submit an action plan on how they would address these breaches. An action plan was submitted by the provider which identified the steps that would be taken. At this inspection, we found the provider and registered manager had taken appropriate action and these regulations had been met. As a result, the overall rating for this service has improved from ‘Requires Improvement’ to ‘Good’.
Victoria Royal Beach is a privately owned care home in Worthing and is registered to provide care for up to 20 older people with a range of health needs. At the time of our inspection, there were 16 people living at the home and all rooms were single occupancy. Victoria Royal Beach has been converted into a home from three properties that were originally terraced. It is situated within a few minutes’ walk of the seafront at Worthing and close to the town centre. The majority of rooms have en-suite facilities and those facing on to Grand Avenue, at first floor level, have a balcony. Communal areas comprise a large sitting room, dining area within a conservatory and a quiet lounge, where people can meet with relatives and friends. The home has accessible gardens to the front and side and there is a five person lift within the property.
At the time of our inspection, the deputy manager was also the acting manager, since the previous manager had deregistered with the Commission in October 2016. A new manager had been appointed and was due to commence employment at the service in January 2017. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Medicines were managed safely and staff had completed each Medication Administration Record (MAR) to show that people had received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely and only authorised staff had access to the medicines room. Some oral mixtures and eyedrops did not have the date of opening recorded on the bottle or outer packaging, but the deputy manager took steps to rectify this omission at the time of our inspection. People told us they felt safe living at the home and staff had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew how to manage this. Risks to people and the service were identified, assessed and managed appropriately. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs safely and new staff were recruited following safe practice.
A range of systems and processes had been put in place to monitor and measure the quality of care delivered and of the service overall. People and their relatives gave their feedback about the service and residents’ meetings were held monthly. Plans were in place to manage the home until the new manager came into post. The Commission was notified appropriately. Staff felt supported by the management team.
Staff had completed a range of training that enabled them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. New staff followed the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. Staff received regular supervision meetings and an annual appraisal. Staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and understood their responsibilities under this legislation and with the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The service operated within the principles of this legislation. People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy lifestyle. They had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services.
People were looked after by kind and caring staff and spoke positively about the way they were cared for. They were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People were supported to express their views and were involved in decisions about their care. Review meetings took place every month and relatives were also involved in the reviews. People were treated with dignity and respect.
Care plans provided detailed information about people and guidance for staff on how to support them. People’s interests and hobbies were documented and the deputy manager told us they tried to organise activities that were of interest to people and in line with their preferences. No complaints had been received within the last year; a complaints policy was in place.
The inspection took place on 19 October 2015 and was unannounced.
Victoria Royal Beach is a privately owned care home in Worthing and is registered to provide care for up to 20 people. At the time of our inspection, there were 16 people living at the home and all rooms were single occupancy. Victoria Royal Beach has been converted into a home from three properties that were originally terraced. It is situated within a few minutes of the seafront at Worthing and close to the town centre. The majority of rooms have en-suite facilities and those facing on to Grand Avenue, at first floor level, have a balcony. Communal areas comprise a large sitting room, dining area within a conservatory and a quiet lounge, where people can meet with relatives and friends. The home has accessible gardens to the front and side and there is a five person lift within the property.
The person currently managing the home had not yet registered with the Commission as they had only been in post for three months and were in the process of completing their probation period with the provider. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People’s medicines were not always managed so that they received them safely. Some Medication Administration Record (MAR) charts had not been completed correctly, which meant that some people may not have received their medicines as prescribed. Two medicines had been over-ordered and stocks of these medicines were excessive. A refrigerator to store some medicines was not locked. MAR charts, containing people’s information, were left out on a shelf in a room with the door open and were not kept confidentially. No formal system was in place to audit medicines to ensure this was managed safely.
There were no formal processes or systems in place to audit the quality of care delivered. Risks were not always assessed and monitored overall to ensure people’s safety. No formal meetings were arranged that enabled people or their relatives to feed back their views about the service.
People were protected from abuse and harm. Staff were trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take. Individual risks to people had been identified and assessed and care plans provided information and guidance to staff on how these should be managed. When accidents or incidents occurred, these had been reported in line with legislation. However, the reports did not identify steps that could be taken to prevent a reoccurrence. Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs safely and the provider followed safe recruitment practices.
People were looked after by staff who had received training in all essential areas. New staff were required to complete the Care Certificate, a universally recognised qualification. Staff had regular supervision meetings, but no arrangements were in place for formal staff meetings. However, staff communicated information about people’s care needs at daily handover meetings between shifts. Staff had a good understanding of the need to gain people’s consent before delivering care. People’s capacity to make decisions had been assessed in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People did not have their freedom restricted and no applications had been made to the local authority under the provisions outlined in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy lifestyle. A variety of meals were on offer and people could choose from several options on the menu. Special diets were catered for and people’s nutrition was assessed and their weight was recorded and monitored. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals as needed.
People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well and they were encouraged to be as independent as possible. People were treated with dignity and respect. When they reached the end of their lives, they were supported to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death in line with what they requested.
Care plans provided detailed, comprehensive information to staff about people and all aspects of their care needs. The majority of care plans included details about people’s life histories, but not all plans were completed consistently and had the same level of detail. There was a range of organised activities at the home, but there was no evidence to show that people had been involved in planning these activities. People could go out with relatives and friends, but there was a lack of staff to support people in the community, unless it was for healthcare appointments.
There was a complaints procedure and policy in place, but no formal complaints had been raised or recorded within the year.
People were not formally asked for their views about the service, although the manager did meet with people every day to obtain their feedback. The manager was fairly new in post and was concentrating on building a fully trained and skilled staff team.
We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of this report.
People told us that the staff treated them with care and respect and that they were happy living at the home.
We saw three care plans and assessments for people who used the service and saw that these were regularly reviewed. We observed that people were involved in their care and had signed their care plans.
We found a team of staff who worked well together. We interviewed five members of staff about their work and their experiences as employees. Staff told us that they were well supported in their role and had appropriate and regular access to training and support.
People told us that staff treated them with respect, and that they felt safe living at the home. One person told us, "I am quite happy to raise issues that make me feel uncomfortable.' People told us that they had a care plan and knew where they were in their rooms. We saw five care plans for people who used the service, and saw that these were regularly reviewed and updated. We also found that people were involved and consulted about their care. A person who used services told us, "when I came in I talked about what I expected."
We found there were sufficient staff on duty in the home on the day of our inspection. We saw that the home offered staff appropriate opportunities to gain qualifications, and that staff had the right skills, experience, and qualifications to meet the needs of people who used services.
We saw that the provider had produced a service review plan, and that actions were being implemented to improve the auditing and management of services. We also saw evidence that the home was undergoing a comprehensive review of its policies and procedures at the time of our inspection.