CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Villas Care Homes Ltd
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2022
The Villas Care Homes Ltd was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements, with visiting guidance updated afterwards.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks. This included safe visiting arrangements, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning, hand sanitiser, the building layout and infection risk assessments.
The home was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Inspectors asked the home to update its visiting policy, and it sent an updated version after the inspection.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a Good, Requires improvement or other quality rating.
Infection control
Inspectors found measures to reduce and control the spread of infection, including PPE and hand sanitiser throughout the building.
“Measures were in place to reduce and control the spread of infection at the location.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning routines were planned and followed, helping the premises remain clean.
“Cleaning routines were planned and followed so that the cleanliness of the location was regularly maintained.” from the report
Testing and risk checks
The home had procedures for regular COVID-19 testing and risk assessments for people and staff.
“Risk assessments were in place to help reduce the risks associated with COVID-19 for people and staff.” from the report
Vaccination requirement
The service was meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
“The service was meeting the requirement to ensure non-exempt staff and visiting professionals were vaccinated against COVID-19.” from the report
Visiting policy needed updating
minorInspectors directed the home to resources so it could develop its visiting arrangements. The home updated its policy and sent a copy after the inspection.
“We signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach for visiting.” from the report
- 01What does the updated visiting policy say, and how will visits work for my relative?
- 02How do you check that PPE, hand sanitiser and cleaning arrangements remain in place?
- 03How often are people using the service and staff tested for COVID-19?
- 04How do you monitor COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and could these affect my relative's care?
- 05How do you manage infection risks when admitting someone new to the home?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not rate the overall service or the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 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, December 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, respectful care and effective oversight, with minor issues about cleaning security and medicines information fixed after the visit.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 November 2020. It was brought forward after concerns about personal protective equipment and social distancing. Inspectors looked mainly at Safe and Well-led, including infection control.
The home was supporting 14 people, with space for up to 16. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, supported by enough suitably recruited staff, and helped to take their medicines safely. Staff understood people's needs and supported their choices and activities.
The home did not have a registered manager. The deputy was acting as manager, and inspectors found the home was still being managed effectively. Two issues were put right after the inspection: a cleaning cupboard was secured and information about cleaning products and covert medicines was obtained.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. The inspection did not reassess Caring, Effective or Responsive.
Choice and independence
People were supported to make choices, maintain their independence and take part in activities they enjoyed.
“People were supported to have opportunities and to embrace how they wanted to live.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People told inspectors that staff were kind and understanding. Staff knew how people wanted to be supported.
“People were treated with dignity and respect and staff engaged well and understood the needs of people who they were supporting.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's care and activity needs. Recruitment checks included criminal records checks and references.
“Staff were safely recruited records showed that criminal records checks and references had been carried out, to show they were suitable to work with vulnerable people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits and reviews to monitor medicines, care plans, risks, accidents and incidents. Inspectors found a focus on improving the service.
“Audits were in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicines information
needs fixingThere was no pharmacy information about giving medicines covertly during the inspection. The information was obtained from the pharmacy afterwards.
“However, there was no pharmacy information on giving medicine covertly, we spoke to the manager about this and the information was obtained from the pharmacy directly after the inspection.” from the report
Cleaning cupboard security
needs fixingThe cleaning cupboard was left open during the inspection. A Yale lock was fitted afterwards.
“We observed that the cleaning cupboard was left open, staff told us it was normally locked, we mentioned this to the manager who, after the inspection had a Yale lock fitted to the door.” from the report
Cleaning product information
minorThere was no information about the cleaning products being used at the time of inspection. This was addressed afterwards.
“There was no information regarding the cleaning products that were used.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager. The deputy was acting as manager while the provider worked to appoint one.
“The service did not have a manager, the deputy was acting as manager at the time of our inspection.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now been appointed, and who is responsible for the home if not?
- 02How do you currently check and record that medicines given covertly are authorised and administered safely?
- 03How are cleaning cupboards kept locked and how is information about cleaning products kept up to date?
- 04How will you support my relative to make choices, maintain independence and take part in activities?
- 05What has changed since the concerns about personal protective equipment and social distancing that led to this inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; Caring, Effective and Responsive were not reassessed and the report does not give new ratings for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 2020 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 Villas Care Homes Ltd
6 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2014.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.