You are here

Victory Socialcare Enterprise Requires improvement

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Victory Socialcare Enterprise provides domiciliary care to people living in their own homes as well as short-term residential care for up to 12 older people recovering from illness. There were 15 people receiving the care at home service when we inspected. There were five people using the residential service recovering from illness after being in hospital and being supported with personal care before they go home.

Not everyone using Victory Socialcare Enterprise receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided. People in the residential respite service were all provided with ‘personal care’, but some living in their own homes were not.

People’s experience of using this service:

People were not always protected from risks. This meant they could be harmed if staff were unaware of how to reduce risks because of unclear information in risk assessments or there being none in place to refer to. The provider responded to our findings by day two of the inspection and risks were reduced.

Medicines were not safely managed. People could be harmed if they did not receive their medicines because of problems with stock control and administration. Poor recording did not help identify these problems. We made a recommendation about following medicines guidelines.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support this practice. People did not always have their ‘best interests’ protected by the use of robust mental capacity assessments and documentation. We made a recommendation about implementing the 'best interest' process and keeping accurate records of it.

Quality assurance systems did not always improve the quality of the support people received, which meant they were at risk of receiving poor care. Some checks that were usually carried out to show this, had lapsed. There was no quality monitoring plan to help drive the systems that were in place and some quality checks were poorly completed. The provider produced a quality monitoring plan and revived the quality checks immediately after our inspection.

Systems were in place to safeguard people from harm and abuse and staffing numbers were sufficient to meet people’s needs with contingency emergency cover arrangements in place. Staff were recruited safely, as references and checks had been completed. The prevention and control of infection was managed well and staff were careful to maintain good hygiene standards. The provider and staff learnt lessons from the mistakes that were made.

People across both areas of the service had their needs assessed and recorded and staff undertook appropriate training to enable them to carry out their roles. People experienced good support with nutrition and maintaining their health, staff worked well with other agencies and the premises for the residential service were suitable for meeting people’s needs.

The service involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

The service met people’s needs because staff were responsive to wishes, likes and preferences. Organisation and delivery of the support given to people were also responsive. Staff were responsive to people’s needs around care and support plans, complaints and end of life care.

The provider tried to give people person-centred, high quality care. Outcomes for people were generally good. The provider understood their responsibility to be open and honest. They engaged and involved people using the service, the public and staff, and fully considered everyone’s individual needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the Care Quality Commission website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

Good for the domiciliary care part of the service (last r