CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Vicarage
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about most infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, visits and managing outbreaks. They were not fully assured that the premises layout and hygiene practices promoted safety.
- 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 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 precautions, but were not fully assured about the premises layout and hygiene.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 6 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, including COVID-19 measures, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, shielding, social distancing, PPE, testing, infection outbreaks, visits and the infection control policy. Staff were using PPE safely, and the home had enough PPE available. People and staff were tested regularly, and all staff were vaccinated as required.
Inspectors were not fully assured that the layout and hygiene practices of the premises promoted safety. They signposted the provider to resources to improve this. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
COVID-19 guidance
Staff and managers helped people and relatives understand COVID-19 protection measures and isolation processes.
“The management and staff team supported people and their relatives to understand the policies and procedures surrounding protection against COVID 19” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors observed staff using PPE safely and confirmed that sufficient supplies were available.
“During our visit we observed the staff using Personal Protective Equipment, (PPE) safely.” from the report
Testing and vaccination
People and staff were tested regularly, and the service met the vaccination requirement for staff and visiting professionals.
“People living in the home and staff were tested regularly for COVID-19.” from the report
Contact with relatives
Mobile phones and computers were used to help people keep in touch with relatives, while visits were facilitated in line with guidance.
“Social media systems such as mobile phones and computer systems were used to facilitate contact between people and their relatives.” from the report
Premises layout and hygiene
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured that the layout and hygiene practices of the premises promoted safety. The provider was signposted to resources to develop its approach.
“We were not fully assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the layout and hygiene practices of the premises since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that hygiene standards are being maintained in all areas of the home?
- 03How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19, and what happens after a positive result?
- 04How are visits currently arranged and what infection control measures do visitors need to follow?
- 05How do you make sure enough PPE is available for staff and visitors?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing pressures; it did not rate the service overall or assess all five areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff checks still to be completed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 April and 03 May 2018. The home supported four adults with learning disabilities or autism, although it could accommodate up to five people. Inspectors observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care records, medicines records, recruitment files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, safe medicines procedures, enough staff, kind interactions and care plans based on each person's needs. People were supported with communication, independence, activities, family contact and healthcare.
There were some issues to follow up. Formal checks of staff medicines competence had not yet been completed, some staff training was overdue, and staff said sickness could sometimes reduce staffing levels. The home was newly registered, so there was no previous CQC rating to compare.
Personalised care plans
Care files included detailed information about each person's life, relationships, interests, communication and routines. This helped staff provide person-centred support.
“The quality of the information in care files for all four people was exceptional; information recorded for each person was individualised including their life history, descriptions of important relationships, hobbies and interests.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff were patient, protected privacy and dignity, and used different communication methods to support choice.
“Staff were patient and caring when delivering support and their interactions showed they knew people well and had formed positive relationships with them.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to build skills, make choices and become more independent. Support included communication practice and everyday tasks.
“The service actively promoted people's independence and development of skills by encouraging and supporting them to carry out tasks by themselves.” from the report
Safe medicines arrangements
Medicines were locked away, records were completed correctly and staff received medicines training. The home also used clear guidance for medicines taken when needed.
“People's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Regular quality checks
Senior staff and managers carried out weekly, monthly and three-monthly audits. These checks identified issues and led to action plans.
“The audits showed evidence of a structured approach to ensuring the service remained safe and provided quality care to people living in The Vicarage.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingThere was a process for checking staff competence to administer medicines, but the formal assessments had not been completed at the time of inspection.
“There was a formal process in place to regularly assess people's competencies to administer medication, however the house manager stated these had not yet been completed.” from the report
Some training overdue
needs fixingRecords showed that some staff training was overdue. Courses had been booked, but the training was not complete when inspectors visited.
“Records showed that some training for some staff was overdue, however courses had been booked to ensure that staff completed the required training.” from the report
Sickness cover
needs fixingStaff said sickness could sometimes leave four people supported by three staff rather than the usual one-to-one arrangement. Inspectors were told this had not affected people's safety and bank staff were used to cover gaps.
“Staff that we spoke with told us that on occasions staffing could be an issue due to sickness as they would sometimes be supporting four people with three staff.” from the report
Meaningful views
minorThe registered manager recognised that monthly meetings did not always obtain meaningful views from people because of their communication difficulties. The home was looking at better ways to do this.
“The registered manager told us they did not feel these were very effective at obtaining meaningful views from people due to the communication difficulties and level of understanding of people.” from the report
- 01Have all formal medicines competency assessments for staff now been completed, and how often are they repeated?
- 02Which staff training was overdue, and has all of it now been completed?
- 03How do you maintain one-to-one support when staff are off sick?
- 04What methods do you now use to obtain meaningful views from people with limited verbal communication?
- 05How are relatives kept involved in care planning and informed about changes in care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality and safety of the home, including all five CQC questions; the home was newly registered and had no previous CQC rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 June 2018 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 Vicarage
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 May 2016.
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
84 live-in carers within about an hour of Cheshire West and Chester
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. 76 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
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.