CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Vicarage Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk plans, medicines, staffing arrangements and infection control were generally managed safely, although one care delay and incomplete employment history checks were found.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- People's health, nutrition and care needs were generally supported effectively. However, staff supervision, induction support and some care reviews or health referrals had not always been provided without delay.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and respectful. People were involved in decisions about their care, daily routines, food, clothing and activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was generally personalised and people were supported to maintain relationships and take part in meaningful activities. Complaints and concerns were not always recorded or dealt with promptly.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and oversight were inconsistent. Frequent manager changes, gaps in governance and delays in responding to concerns meant the provider could not show that improvements were timely and sustained.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but weaknesses in staff support and management oversight.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 21 March 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, care staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, complaints, staffing records and management records.
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Medicines and infection control were managed safely. Staff were kind, respectful and knew people well. Care was generally personalised, and people were supported with meals, activities, communication and end of life care.
The home was not always effective or well-led. Staff supervision and induction support had not been reliable, complaints had sometimes been delayed or missed, and there had been frequent changes of manager. The provider had started improvements, but inspectors could not yet show that these were fully in place or lasting.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2017, to Requires Improvement. Safe, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People, relatives and staff were confident that safety needs were being met. Staff understood the risks in people's care plans and what to do in emergencies.
“People, relatives and staff we spoke with, felt confident people's safety needs were being met.” from the report
Safe medicines and infection control
Inspectors found safe arrangements for ordering, storing, giving and recording medicines. They were also assured about infection prevention and control.
“People's medicines were safely managed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with patience, kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's preferences and supported their choices.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff were patient, kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were supported to enjoy activities inside and outside the home, keep in touch with family and friends, and pursue individual interests.
“People were supported to take part in home life, maintain relationships that were important to them and participate in a range of activities they enjoyed, both within and outside the home.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThe provider's systems did not consistently identify and fix problems quickly. The home had no registered manager at the inspection and had experienced high manager turnover.
“We found gaps in the provider's governance framework for accountability and oversight with regard to the management and effectiveness of people's care.” from the report
Staff support was not reliable
needs fixingStaff were trained, but supervision and induction support were not consistently effective. Many staff said they had to complete e-learning in their own time.
“Staff were trained but not effectively supervised for their role and responsibilities.” from the report
Complaints were delayed
needs fixingSome concerns were not recorded or acted on promptly. Recent action had started, but the earlier delays had affected confidence in management.
“Complaints and concerns were not always recorded, or actioned without delay.” from the report
Improvements were not yet embedded
needs fixingSeveral improvements had recently started, but the provider could not show that they were fully in place or sustained over time.
“However efficacy was not yet demonstrated, as the improvements were either not yet fully embedded, or demonstrated as sustained and ongoing for people's care.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress of the registered manager application?
- 02How often do staff receive supervision, and is protected time provided for required e-learning?
- 03How are complaints and concerns recorded, investigated and followed up now?
- 04What changes have been made to the provider's governance and quality monitoring systems since this inspection?
- 05How do you check that care plan reviews and health referrals happen promptly?
This was an unannounced inspection that assessed all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; the previous rating was from a 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, including clean equipment and safe visiting procedures.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. Inspectors were responding to concerns about infection prevention and control. They also asked about staffing pressures and whether these affected care.
Inspectors found safe arrangements for COVID-19 admissions, visiting, testing, isolation, shielding, social distancing and use of protective equipment. They were also assured that the infection control policy was up to date and that outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
The environment and care equipment were visibly clean and in good repair. The provider had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The provider had arrangements for safe admissions, visiting, testing and isolation when needed, in line with guidance and the law.
“The provider followed safe arrangements and procedures, in line with nationally recognised guidance and the law, for the prevention and control of infection at the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building and care equipment visibly clean and kept in good repair.
“The environment and care equipment were visibly clean and kept in a good state of repair and renewal.” from the report
Staff support
Staff were deployed, supported and kept informed about infection prevention and cleanliness. The provider also had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
“Staff were effectively deployed, supported and informed to ensure safe arrangements for the prevention and control of infection and cleanliness at the service.” from the report
Safe visiting
The home followed safe visiting procedures and was meeting the vaccination requirement then in force for eligible staff and visiting professionals.
“The provider followed safe visiting arrangements and procedures, in line with nationally recognised guidance and the law, to ensure people's best interests.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently manage COVID-19 or other infection risks for visitors and residents?
- 02What happens if a new resident needs to be admitted while they may have an infection?
- 03How are staffing pressures managed now, and how do you check they are not affecting people's care?
- 04How are testing, protective equipment and isolation arrangements kept up to date?
- 05How would visiting arrangements change if there was an infection outbreak?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; only Safe was inspected and it was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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.
Every inspection of The Old Vicarage Care Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.