CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Vicarage Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing and managing infection risks. They were also assured about visitor checks, social distancing, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and the infection control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 2 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than the full range of care quality.
Inspectors found that people entering the home had their temperature checked, washed their hands, completed a health questionnaire and wore full personal protective equipment. Staff also wore full protective equipment and whole-home testing was in place.
The home was clean and free from clutter. Limited visits were allowed for people receiving end-of-life care or where stopping visits was harming their wellbeing.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the home overall.
Checks for visitors
People entering the home had several checks before coming in, including temperature checking, handwashing and a health questionnaire.
“Any person entering the building had their temperature taken, washed their hands, completed a health questionnaire and wore full personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff wore full protective equipment when supporting people, whether the person had tested positive or negative for COVID-19.
“People were supported by staff in full PPE, whether that person was COVID-19 positive or negative.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and without clutter. The home told them that cleaning took place frequently during the day and in communal areas at night.
“The building was clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Testing
Testing was available across the home for people living there, visitors and staff.
“Whole home testing was in place for people, visitors and the staff.” from the report
Some visiting allowed
Limited visits were allowed for people receiving end-of-life care, or where stopping visits was harming their wellbeing.
“The service were allowing limited visiting for those people who were on end of life care or for those people that it was having a detrimental impact on their wellbeing.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How does the home currently manage visits, including visits for people receiving end-of-life care or whose wellbeing is being harmed by reduced contact?
- 02What testing is currently available for people living in the home, visitors and staff?
- 03How often are communal areas and other parts of the home cleaned?
- 04When do staff wear protective equipment, and how is it changed safely?
- 05How is the infection prevention and control policy kept up to date?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not rate the other areas of care quality. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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, April 2019
Aisling Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 4 March 2019. Inspectors reviewed information about the home, watched staff support people, spoke with people, a relative, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care, medicines, incident and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received their medicines as prescribed, and were supported by staff who knew them and their needs.
There were some shortcomings. Medicines records did not always clearly show stock carried forward, some care plans lacked detail, and some audits were not detailed enough. The manager said immediate action would be taken, and evidence was provided after the inspection that best-interest decisions were being recorded.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in August 2018. Inspectors found that improvements had been made in areas including risk management, staff training, complaints and leadership.
People felt safe
Risk assessments and monitoring records were in place, and staffing levels were considered sufficient to keep people safe and provide care in a timely way.
“People felt safe living at the service. Risk assessments had been completed to ensure that action was taken to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness, protected their dignity and knew what made them happy.
“People received care and support from staff that were kind and caring. People's privacy and dignity was protected and promoted.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans had improved to include people's likes, dislikes and preferred ways of receiving support. Activities were based on people's interests and hobbies.
“Care plans had improved so that they focussed on each person's likes and dislikes and how they wanted to be supported.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The home addressed earlier problems with risk management, staff training, complaints and leadership. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“The provider, registered manager and staff had worked hard since the previous inspection to make the required improvements so that people received a better quality service.” from the report
Some care plans lacked detail
needs fixingOne care plan said a person needed help to stand but did not say which equipment to use. Staff knew the equipment, but this was not clearly written in the plan.
“Some parts of the care plans would benefit from being more detailed.” from the report
Kitchen access risk
needs fixingInspectors discussed the risks of people having free access to the kitchen. The manager said action would be taken immediately to keep people safe.
“We discussed the free access to the kitchen with the registered manager and the risks that this may pose to people.” from the report
Audits were sometimes not detailed
minorThe home carried out audits across many areas, but some lacked detail. Action plans did identify who was responsible and when actions had been completed.
“Some of the audits completed lacked detail.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines carried forward at the start of each month match the stock records?
- 02How do care plans specify the equipment each person needs for moving and standing?
- 03What action was taken about people's free access to the kitchen, and how is this risk checked now?
- 04How are best-interest decisions recorded and reviewed for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
- 05How have you improved the detail in your quality audits since the inspection?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, following a Requires Improvement rating at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 2019 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
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 January 2018.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.