CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Veteran Care Village
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, appropriate risk assessments, safe premises and robust infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous comprehensive inspection rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous comprehensive inspection rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous comprehensive inspection rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stronger audits, monitoring and improvement processes. People and staff spoke positively about how the home was being run.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe care and stronger management after earlier breaches.
This was a focused inspection following concerns about risk assessments, staffing, medicines, the building and management. Inspectors also considered infection control during a COVID-19 outbreak. They spoke with four people, five care staff and managers, and reviewed care records, medicines records, risk assessments, safety records and audits.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and effective infection control. People said they felt safe, and staff were described as kind, respectful and supportive.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in January 2020, with two regulatory breaches. The provider had completed an action plan, and inspectors found enough improvement for the breaches to be cleared. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Safe medicines
Medicines, including controlled drugs, were stored at the right temperature. Records showed medicines were given at the right time by trained staff whose competence had been checked.
“Medicines, including controlled drugs were stored safely and at the correct temperature.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were planned using a system and rotas showed the recommended number of staff had worked on each shift.
“Enough staff had been deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection control
The home had strengthened cleaning, testing and infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“The home had robust cleaning and infection control processes in place.” from the report
Improved oversight
New audits, monitoring systems and a continuous improvement plan were being used to identify and address issues.
“A range of audits and monitoring systems to assess the quality and performance of the home and care provided had been put in place.” from the report
Respectful staff
Inspectors observed staff being friendly, courteous and respectful towards people living in the home.
“Observations made during inspection showed staff were very courteous, pleasant and friendly with the people they supported and showed respect and empathy towards them.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with CQC at the time of the inspection. The replacement manager was still completing the registration process.
“At the time of this inspection the home did not have a manager registered with CQC.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now completed CQC registration, and who is legally responsible for the home while this is being completed?
- 02How do you make sure guidance for medicines given when needed contains personalised reasons for giving them?
- 03How are staffing numbers checked each day when people's needs change?
- 04What issues have been identified through the new audits and continuous improvement plan, and have they all been completed?
- 05What infection control and visiting arrangements are currently in place following the COVID-19 outbreak?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other three key-question ratings were not inspected and carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care but weaknesses in medicines management and service oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
People generally felt safe and said staff were kind and respectful. However, medicines records and checks were not reliable enough, some people had to wait for staff, and care plans did not always contain all the information staff needed.
The provider breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. An interim manager had started making changes, and CQC said it would request an action plan and monitor progress.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. People appeared comfortable with staff and sought them out.
“We found staff were kind, caring and considerate of people's individual needs and preferences and respected their culture and life experiences.” from the report
Good support and training
People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had regular training and supervision, and worked with health professionals when needed.
“People had their needs assessed before they came to live at Broughton House - Home for Ex-Service Men and Women.” from the report
Food and nutrition
People's dietary needs were assessed and support was recorded. People said there was plenty of choice and food was available around the clock.
“People had access to food and drink 24 hours a day.” from the report
Responsive support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and communication needs. The home supported hobbies, family relationships and end of life wishes.
“Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and preferences and used this information to care for people in the way they wanted.” from the report
Medicines checks and records
seriousOne medicine stock total did not match the amount held, and the error had not been found by internal auditing. Storage checks and instructions for some as-needed medicines were also incomplete.
“Some systems were not robust enough to demonstrate the management and administration of medicines was safe.” from the report
Staff availability
needs fixingSome feedback said staff were rushed and people could wait for help with their buzzer. The provider was reviewing staffing levels, shift patterns and roles.
“Sometimes it takes them up to ten minutes to respond to my buzzer.” from the report
Care plan detail
needs fixingSome care plans did not fully describe people's health conditions or the support they needed. The manager had started a review.
“Some care plans required additional information to reflect people's health conditions.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits and governance systems had failed to identify or address the problems found by inspectors. The service was also between managers.
“We reviewed auditing and governance systems and found they had failed to identify or address the concerns raised during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the medicines checking system since the inspection, and how do you now check stock, storage and as-needed medicine instructions?
- 02What staffing levels and deployment arrangements are in place, and how quickly are people usually answered when they use their buzzer?
- 03Have all care plans been updated to include each person's health conditions, risks and required support?
- 04What action has been taken in response to the Regulation 17 breach, and how is the provider checking that improvements are working?
- 05Has a permanent manager been appointed, and who is currently responsible for the home's quality and safety?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous ratings were reviewed and Safe and Well-led had deteriorated from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 January 2020 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 Veteran Care Village
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 October 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Salford
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.