CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Old Vicarage Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and managed, accidents and incidents were reviewed, medicines were handled safely and staff were recruited safely. Inspectors found that face coverings were not always worn correctly and some areas were not clean or well maintained.
- Effective?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess the Effective key question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess the Caring key question, although people and relatives gave positive feedback about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This focused inspection did not assess the Responsive key question.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality systems had improved, but they needed more time to become fully effective. The provider was strengthening checks on the environment and infection control.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but well-led was Requires Improvement and infection control needed further work.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 August and 6 September 2022. Inspectors checked whether earlier improvements had been made, looking mainly at safety and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, a relative, staff and visiting health professionals, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe, risks were managed, medicines were given as prescribed and staffing was suitable. People, relatives, staff and health professionals gave positive feedback about the care. The home also supported people to make choices and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
The overall rating was Good. Safe was rated Good, but Well-led remained Requires Improvement because new monitoring systems were not fully embedded. Inspectors also found problems with face coverings and cleaning, and recommended that infection control practice be reviewed.
Risks were managed
Inspectors found that risks to people and the service were assessed and managed. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to help prevent them happening again.
“Risks to people and the service were assessed and managed. This helped to promote people's safety.” from the report
Medicines were safer
Medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff responsible for medicines understood the required procedures.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Suitable staffing
People were supported by enough staff who knew their needs. Recruitment checks were carried out safely.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were familiar with their needs and were known to them.” from the report
Positive relationships
People, relatives, staff and health professionals gave positive feedback. Inspectors found a positive culture and said the provider acted promptly on feedback.
“People living at The Old Vicarage felt well cared for.” from the report
Infection control
needs fixingStaff did not always wear face coverings correctly. Some parts of the environment were not cleaned or maintained properly, so the provider was asked to review its infection control practice.
“During the inspection staff were not consistently wearing face coverings appropriately.” from the report
Management checks needed embedding
needs fixingQuality and oversight systems had improved, but inspectors said they were not yet fully effective in everyday practice. Further monitoring of the environment and infection control was still being developed.
“The provider had actively worked to make improvements in the service to improve people's experiences, but further time was required to ensure the level of governance and oversight that had been implemented could embed and become fully effective.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure staff wear face coverings correctly?
- 02Which areas of the home were found not to be clean or well maintained, and have these issues now been resolved?
- 03How do you check that the new quality assurance and infection control systems are working consistently?
- 04How are accidents and incidents reviewed, and how do you make sure lessons are acted on?
- 05How do you make sure medicine records always contain the information staff need to give medicines safely?
This was an unannounced focused inspection covering Safe and Well-led; the report says its findings only relate to those two key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and enough staff on duty, but weaknesses in risk monitoring, records and quality checks put people at increased risk.
Inspectors visited on 19 and 21 January 2021. One inspector spoke with staff and people living at the home, observed care, checked the premises and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was clean, infection control measures mostly followed government guidance, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff knew how to raise safeguarding concerns, and people received their medicines as prescribed.
However, risk assessments were not regularly reviewed and records did not always give staff enough guidance. Medicine records were incomplete in places. Quality checks had not found or fixed these problems, and the provider had limited oversight of the home.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement. This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other three ratings were carried forward from the previous full inspection and were not checked during this visit.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's needs to be met safely and promptly.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff had the training and knowledge to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.
“Staff were trained in safeguarding and had the skills and knowledge to identify and raise concerns to relevant professionals.” from the report
Caring culture
The management team promoted a caring approach, and people and relatives gave positive feedback about the home.
“The management team promoted a caring and positive culture.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy, and inspectors were assured about most of its infection prevention arrangements.
“Staff ensured people lived in a clean and tidy environment.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousThe home's checks did not identify or resolve important shortfalls in risk management, accident learning, medicines and records. This was linked to a breach of Regulation 17.
“Quality assurance systems had not identified or addressed the shortfalls identified during the inspection.” from the report
Risk records not kept up to date
seriousSome risk assessments were not reviewed regularly, and COVID-19 records did not always explain clearly how staff should manage risks.
“Risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been identified and managed. Though risk assessments had not been regularly reviewed, to monitor for any changes required.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingFridge temperature checks, guidance for medicines given when needed, and records for controlled medicines were not always completed correctly. The CQC recommended that the provider review its medicine processes.
“Medicine records were not always completed in line with the provider's medication processes.” from the report
Limited involvement
needs fixingThere was limited evidence of provider oversight and limited engagement with people and relatives about how the home could improve.
“There was a lack of engagement with people and their relatives about how to improve the service.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure every risk assessment is reviewed when people's needs change?
- 02How do you now check medicine fridge temperatures and record the action taken if a temperature is outside the required range?
- 03How are staff given clear instructions for medicines prescribed to be given when needed?
- 04How do you check that controlled medicine records have the required two signatures?
- 05What evidence can you show of feedback from people and relatives, and how has it led to improvements?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led after concerns about records; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 March 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 The Old Vicarage Residential Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Old Vicarage Residential Care Home →
- March 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at The Old Vicarage Residential Care Home →
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 February 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
16 live-in carers within about an hour of East Riding of Yorkshire
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 £1,030 to £1,420 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
“What truly stands out is how mindful and attentive she is to all of my medical needs, always going above and beyond to ensure I’m comfortable and well cared for.”
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.