CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 23 Valley Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding and risk management. However, some safety checks and medicine records were not completed consistently.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care that met their needs and staff were described as trained and confident. The provider had arranged reviews of support needs and extra training where gaps had been found.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were friendly, respectful and compassionate. People were involved in decisions, supported to communicate in their preferred ways and encouraged to develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication needs and interests. People could choose activities, contact family and friends, and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had systems to monitor quality and staff felt supported and able to speak up. Inspectors found that some daily notes and care documents did not fully reflect the support provided.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but some care and safety records were not consistently up to date.
The home provides personal care for four people and can accommodate up to five. It mainly supports people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health conditions. The inspection was unannounced and was carried out by one inspector on two dates.
People said they felt safe and liked living at the home. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable infection control and care that respected people's choices, privacy and independence. Staff supported people to manage risks, make decisions, keep in contact with family and take part in activities.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection to Good in all five areas. Inspectors still found some gaps in care plans, medicine records, safety checks and daily notes. The provider had identified or acted on these issues, but some improvements still needed to become consistent.
Person-centred support
The home supported people according to their individual preferences and helped them make meaningful choices about their lives.
“The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of the management and staff provided support in the way each person preferred and enabled them to make meaningful choices.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors observed warmth, empathy, respect and support for people's independence.
“Staff spoke with genuine warmth, empathy and compassion when referring to the people they cared for.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make their own decisions, take appropriate risks and become more independent.
“People were involved in managing their own risks whenever possible. Staff anticipated and managed risk in a person-centred way, there was a culture of positive risk taking.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors saw safe staffing levels and found recruitment checks in place. Staff described their training and induction positively.
“We observed safe staffing levels throughout the inspection and staff appeared unhurried and responsive to people.” from the report
Care plans and risk records
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments did not reflect changes in people's support. The provider was updating them, but the work was not complete.
“However, care plans and risk assessments had not always been updated to reflect changes in people's support.” from the report
Safety checks
needs fixingSome checks, including fire extinguisher, first aid box and shower descaling checks, were not completed consistently. The provider took prompt action during the inspection.
“However, we found that these checks were not always consistently completed.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingThere were gaps in medicine administration records, although a second record showed that people had received their prescribed medicines.
“We did observe some gaps in the medicine's administration records, however, the provider was able to evidence people had received their prescribed medicines” from the report
Daily notes
minorSome daily records did not show the person-centred support that inspectors saw in practice. The provider said it would review this.
“Some of the notes lacked detail and did not evidence the person-centred approaches used by staff.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that every person's care plan and risk assessment reflects their current support?
- 02What system now makes sure fire, first aid, maintenance and other safety checks are completed on time?
- 03How do you check medicine administration records for gaps and make sure topical medicines are applied as prescribed?
- 04How are staff being supported to write daily notes that accurately record person-centred care?
- 05What changes were made after the previous Requires Improvement rating, and how do you monitor whether they are lasting?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control and COVID-19 vaccination requirements. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found risks around financial safeguarding, medicines and management systems that required improvement.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 19 April 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led after concerns about possible financial abuse. They spoke with people, managers and relatives, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had acted on the financial concerns and reported them to the relevant authorities. However, safeguards were not yet fully embedded. Inspectors also found that medicines were not always given safely, including concerns about support with insulin.
Inspectors found some positive practice. Care records were detailed and reviewed after incidents. Staff had suitable training and supervision, infection control procedures were followed, and people were treated with dignity. The overall service was recorded as inspected but not rated, with Safe and Well-led both rated Requires Improvement.
Detailed care records
Inspectors found that care records were current and reviewed after incidents involving behaviour that challenged others.
“Records relating to people's care were detailed, up to date and reviewed after incidents where behaviours challenged others.” from the report
Infection control
The home had procedures for preventing and controlling infection, and inspectors were assured that staff and visitors followed them.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
Staff had appropriate training, supervision and recruitment checks. There were also systems to assess staff competence in giving medicines.
“Staff received appropriate training and were supervised effectively.” from the report
Respectful support
Inspectors observed staff engaging with people respectfully. People were supported to take part in activities, including archery in the garden.
“We observed staff engaging with people and treating them with dignity and respect at all times.” from the report
Financial safeguarding
seriousSystems did not consistently protect people from the possibility of financial abuse. The provider had investigated and introduced an action plan, but the safeguards still needed time to become established.
“Safeguarding systems and processes failed to prevent the possibility of financial abuse.” from the report
Medicines, including insulin
seriousInspectors could not be assured that medicines were always given safely or that errors were reported promptly. They received specific concerns about one person's insulin support and referred the matter to the local authority safeguarding team.
“We could not be assured medicines were always administered safely.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingGovernance and quality monitoring were not yet fully established. The provider acknowledged that it needed to improve oversight of care and safety.
“Governance systems required time to be embedded.” from the report
Choice and person-centred care
needs fixingThe home could not demonstrate that it was meeting the stated principles of choice, dignity, independence and empowerment for people with learning disabilities or autism.
“We could not be assured the model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and Independence.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way you protect residents' money since the possible financial abuse concerns?
- 02How do you make sure insulin and other medicines are given at the right time, and how are errors reported and reviewed?
- 03What checks now show that your new financial audits and governance systems are working in practice?
- 04How do you support each resident to make choices, maintain independence and take part in activities in the community?
- 05What progress has been made since the change in leadership, and how do you monitor the consistency of care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 May 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 23 Valley Road
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2020.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.