CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Station Villa
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough trained staff, up-to-date risk assessments, safe medicines systems and appropriate safeguarding and infection-control arrangements. One person's money records did not tally, and the manager agreed to investigate.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection, although inspectors described respectful, person-centred care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found strong leadership, quality checks and a person-centred culture. Some staff reported problems with team dynamics, which management was trying to address, and there was no registered manager in post at the visit.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Station Villa: Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with a small money-record issue and some staff concerns about team working.
This was an unannounced inspection on 03 October 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with seven people and seven staff, reviewed care and medicine records, and considered feedback from relatives and staff.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, well-managed risks, safe medicines systems, suitable infection controls and effective checks on quality.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in work, college, clubs and community activities. Staff were described as kind and respectful, and inspectors found a strong person-centred culture.
There were a few issues to keep in mind. Money records did not tally for one person, some staff reported problems with team dynamics, and there was no registered manager in post at the time of the visit. The report does not give fresh ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make real choices about their day, learn skills and use local facilities. Staff focused on people's strengths and personal goals.
“The model of care and setting maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Enough familiar staff
The home had enough staff to meet people's needs and did not use agency staff. Absences were covered by existing staff and management, so people were supported by people they knew.
“This meant people always received care and support from staff they knew and trusted.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people's individual care, communication and behavioural needs. Inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and supported after consent was sought.
“People were treated in a dignified manner and staff were aware of people's support needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and checked as competent. Medicines were ordered, stored, given and audited through suitable arrangements.
“Medicines were managed safely to ensure people received them in accordance with their health needs and the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Quality oversight
The management team used audits, meetings and incident reviews to identify improvements. Inspectors found clear responsibility and accountability across the staff team.
“There were robust quality assurance and auditing systems in place designed to drive improvements in the service's performance.” from the report
One money-record discrepancy
minorThe money checked for one person did not match the finance records. The manager said this would be investigated.
“The service supported people to manage some aspects of their finances. We checked the monies for some people in the service and except for one, they all tallied with finance records.” from the report
Team dynamics
needs fixingSome staff said there were problems in how the team worked together and supported each other. Management knew about this and was trying to address it.
“Some staff felt there were at times issues with the team dynamics in how they worked and supported each other.” from the report
No registered manager in post
minorThere was no registered manager at the time of inspection. Another registered manager was overseeing the home, and an application had been made for dual registration.
“At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What happened with the money-record discrepancy found for one person, and what checks are now in place?
- 02What actions have been taken to improve team dynamics and how staff support each other?
- 03Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of the dual-registration application?
- 04How will the home support my relative's own choices, activities, independence and communication needs?
- 05How are medicines, accidents, safeguarding concerns and care-quality audits reviewed and followed up?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give fresh ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2023 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some medicine recording and checking issues.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 17 August 2017. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers, a health professional and a relative. They observed care, looked around the home and checked care, staffing, training and other records.
The home supported 13 people with learning disabilities and could accommodate up to 16. People told inspectors they felt safe and happy. Staff were described as kind, respectful and supportive. People were involved in their care, meals, activities and personal goals, including developing skills for more independence.
Inspectors found enough trained staff, personalised care records, good support with health and nutrition, and effective management systems. They identified two medicine issues: handwritten medicine charts were not always checked by another staff member, and one tablet had been taken from the wrong blister pack.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the home met the standards inspected, although the medicine issues needed prompt attention.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm, respectful relationships between people and staff. People and relatives spoke positively about the support they received.
“We observed people had good relationships with staff and staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful manner.” from the report
Personal goals
People helped set their own goals and were supported to build daily living skills and achieve more independence.
“This showed that people were fully involved in setting their own goals, and were supported to, where possible, work towards achieving them.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough suitably skilled staff. New staff received a thorough induction and staff had regular training and supervision.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty and staffing levels were adjusted to meet people's changing needs and wishes.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records described people's needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff knew people well and supported them consistently.
“Care records were up to date, had been regularly reviewed and accurately reflected people's care and support needs.” from the report
Medicine chart checks
needs fixingWhen staff wrote medicine charts by hand, another staff member did not always check them. Inspectors said this checking was needed to help prevent medicine errors.
“Where staff had handwritten the medicine chart, it was not always witnessed by another member of staff.” from the report
Incorrect blister pack
seriousInspectors found that one tablet had been taken from the wrong blister pack. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“However we noted in one case that a tablet had been taken from the incorrect blister pack.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the tablet was taken from the incorrect blister pack?
- 02How are handwritten medicine charts now checked before medicines are given?
- 03How will you involve my relative in setting goals and developing daily living skills?
- 04How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating?
- 05How will you keep me informed about health appointments, changes in health or concerns?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five quality questions, with observations, discussions and checks of care, staffing, training and service records. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 September 2017 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 Station Villa
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 December 2011.
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
10 live-in carers within about two hours of Cornwall
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 £1,200 a week. 8 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“He had been a little anxious before she arrived, but has since stated that he would be very happy for her to care for him again”
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.