We carried out a review of the data available to us about Victoria Gardens 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 Gardens, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ When visitors arrived at the home, they were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 and were required to complete a lateral flow test. This was to ensure their visit could take place safely in line with current guidance.
¿ People were supported to maintain contact with those who were important to them in a variety of ways. One person had a hearing impairment and had been provided with headphones which meant they were able to communicate effectively with their family members during zoom calls.
¿ Wellbeing supervision sessions had been held with staff, and an external confidential advice and support helpline was available to staff to seek advice and support. The hours some staff worked had been changed to support their wellbeing.
¿ Staff carried a laminated picture card in their pocket which reminded them of the correct way to put on and take off their personal protective equipment. Following the correct procedure is important to reduce the transmission of infection.
¿ Cleaning schedules had been increased. The management team completed checks to ensure cleaning schedules were followed and staff complied with the provider's infection control policy.
Victoria Gardens is a residential care home providing personal care for up to 28 people aged 65 and over. At the time of the inspection the service was providing care for 24 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We identified improvements were needed to medicine management, and the level of detail in care records, so it was clear how staff responded to people’s needs.
People felt safe living at Victoria Gardens and staff knew how to identify signs of potential abuse and how to respond to these. Staff felt confident to immediately report any concerns of abuse to their manager or other agencies.
There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people needs. Recruitment checks were carried out on new staff to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. Ongoing training was provided to staff to update their knowledge, and competency checks were completed to ensure staff had learnt from their training.
People enjoyed the food provided and staff closely monitored the food and fluid intake of those
people at risk of poor nutrition and hydration. People were referred to health professionals when concerns regarding their nutritional needs were identified.
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. Staff and people using the service had good relationships. Staff provided kind, compassionate care. People's dignity was maintained, and personal care was carried out in private and in a timely way.
The home was clean, and staff understood what actions to take to protect people from the risk of infections.
The provider had systems in place to closely monitor all aspects of the service. A management team was available to support the manager in ensuring the quality of care and service provided was in accordance with the providers expectations. This included a deputy manager, plus an area director and area quality director who regularly visited the home.
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 19 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted in part due to an investigation of a serious incident where someone had fallen. Whilst the detail of this investigation is not forming part of this report, we looked at the information we had received, the management of the service and what actions had been taken.
We found evidence that the provider had taken action since the incident to mitigate the risks associated with falls and this had been effective. However, improvements were needed in regards to information available to temporary staff about people’s care needs to ensure these were met safely.
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.
People continued to receive safe care and there were enough staff to support people’s needs. People were protected from the risk of harm. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff were suitably recruited to ensure they were able to work with people who lived at the home.
People made decisions about their care and staff sought people’s consent. Where people lacked capacity they were helped to make decisions. Where their liberty was restricted, this had been identified and action taken to ensure this was lawful.
People received supported to stay well and had access to health care services. They were able to choose what to eat and drink. Staff received training to meet the specific needs of people who used the service.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. People were asked their preferences about how they wanted to be cared for and supported to do things they liked to do. These details were recorded in people’s care plans including their end of life wishes.
People were involved in the planning and review of their care and support, and if appropriate family members were consulted. People knew how to make a complaint or raise a concern.
The provider and the registered manager had systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. People and staff were encouraged and had opportunities to raise their views about the service about how improvements could be made. The registered manager promoted an open culture which put people at the centre of the service.
We inspected Victoria Gardens on 5 May 2015. The inspection was unannounced.
Victoria Gardens is registered to provide accommodation for up to 28 older people who require personal care. There were 24 people living in the home at the time of our visit.
A requirement of the service’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection.
People living at Victoria Gardens had varying degrees of care needs. Most had the capacity to express their needs and interact with other people and staff members. The home was bright with ample space for people to socialise as well as quiet areas should they require it.
There were enough staff available to safeguard the health and wellbeing of people. Where risks associated with people’s care had been identified, there were plans in place to manage those risks. The majority of people had mobility difficulties and had walking aids to assist them to safely maintain independent mobility.
People told us they felt safe in the home and staff understood their role in keeping people safe from abuse. The provider had a thorough recruitment procedure to ensure staff who worked in the home were safe to work with the people who lived there.
Staff were given an induction and training and people we spoke with felt staff had the knowledge and understanding to meet their needs effectively.
The manager understood their responsibility to comply with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
Staff were kind and compassionate to people and understood the importance of supporting people to maintain their independence and caring relationships. People told us staff were responsive to their social needs and there was a programme of activities to keep them active and interested. People were provided with food and drinks that met their health needs and were supported to attend regular health checks.
People who used the service, their relatives and staff were given opportunities to share their views about the quality of service. The management team were seen as approachable and their presence was noticeable throughout the day. The registered manager carried out a series of regular checks and audits to monitor the service people received. Action had been taken when a need for improvements had been identified.
Is the service safe?
People told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel completely safe here." Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.
Staff knew about risk management plans and we saw that they supported people in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.
We found people's nutritional needs were assessed and that people were provided with a choice of nutritional and healthy meals. This meant people were protected from the risk of inadequate nutrition and dehydration.
We found that medicines people needed were stored and administered in a safe way by staff who were appropriately trained and competent. This meant people were protected from the risks associated with medicines.
The provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure staff were of good character and had the skills and knowledge to support people in a safe way.
Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.
CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff have been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.
Is the service effective?
People's care needs were assessed with them. All of the people we spoke with told us they were involved in their care planning and reviews of care. We saw that care plans were regularly updated.
Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by the staff. This meant the provider worked well with other services to ensure people's health care needs were met.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by staff that were kind and caring. We saw that staff gave people encouragement and respected their privacy and dignity. One person told us, "The staff are great. Everyone who works here is very kind."
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People had the opportunity to plan and engage in a range of different activities each day.
People were asked their views about the service and the provider acted on comments and suggestions that people made.
Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this. This was because staff discussed people's care needs with them on a regular basis. People told us staff would always do their best to make sure they were happy.
Is the service well led?
The provider had quality assurance and risk management systems in place. We found the registered manager checked that risks were managed effectively.
The provider sought the views of people who used the service. Records seen by us indicated that shortfalls in the service were addressed
People indicated they were happy with the care and support they were receiving. Comments included:
'All the staff are good, the best thing is the friendliness, they can't do enough for you. At night they come every two hours, they usually ask me if I want a drink.'
'I am quite happy with my care provided here, the care is good, the staff are all nice.'
We looked at how care was being provided and care records. People had a detailed assessment of their needs prior to moving to the home. A care plan was developed from that assessment of needs. We found some aspects of people's health care needs were not always being effectively and safely managed. Staff were observant of changes in people's health and made appropriate referrals to other health professionals when necessary.
The home was clean, tidy and well maintained.
Staff had received the required training to support them in developing their skills. They had received training specific to the needs of the people living there such as dementia and dignity training.
Records we looked at were stored securely. People's personal information was kept confidential.
People we spoke with told us they felt well cared for. One person said, "It's quite a lovely place. The staff are nice and the food is good." A visitor to the home said, "X looks so much better since she has been here."
We saw that care plans provided staff with information about what care and support people required. Care plans were reviewed regularly to ensure people received the care they needed.
During our visit we saw people moving around the home as they wished. Staff we spoke with understood their responsibility to be observant of potential abuse and to keep people safe.
On the day of our visit there were enough staff to meet people's individual needs. Staff told us the manager would increase staff numbers at times when the level of care required was higher.
The home had a complaints policy and procedure. People told us if they had any concerns about anything they would tell a member of staff or the manager.
We made an unannounced visit to this care home on 18 January 2012.
There were 25 people using the service when we visited. We spoke with nine of these people and spent time observing their experiences in the care home.
We looked at three people's care records and spoke with the manager, the administrator, activities co-ordinator and two care staff. We looked at some records relating to the running of the home, such as staffing training records. We toured the home and looked at the lounge and dining areas and several bedrooms.
The people we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support they receive. Their comments included,
'Staff are helpful and courteous.'
'I have friends among the staff and others that live here. I like living here.'
We saw that people were not left unattended for extended lengths of times. There was a staff presence in communal areas. We saw staff sitting and chatting with people when they were not involved in a task to meet a particular care need. People appeared to be comfortable in approaching staff with their requests and staff responded quickly.
We observed that staff treated people respectfully. People were addressed by their preferred names and staff were discreet when asking about care needs. Staff gave sensitive explanations when they were helping people, speaking to them at a pace and level appropriate to their individual needs.
We found that the service was meeting the care and welfare needs of people using the service. We found that people's health and safety are promoted because systems are in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.