CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Vineries
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including PPE, testing, visiting, cleaning, social distancing and outbreak management. They were only somewhat assured that the COVID-19 policy documentation was up to date with current guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a finding for this question.
- Caring?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a finding for this question.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a finding for this question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This targeted inspection did not give a finding for this question.
What inspectors found, April 2021
The Vineries was inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally good infection control, but COVID-19 policy records were not fully up to date.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 8 March 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. The home had improved flooring and chairs, increased cleaning staff, and used infection control funding to help staff avoid public transport.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured that the COVID-19 policy documents reflected current guidance. They signposted the provider to resources to improve this. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Visiting arrangements
The home acted quickly when Government guidance changed and gave relatives information about testing and holding hands during visits.
“When the Government guidance changed the service was proactive in ensuring the new visiting arrangements were in place for relatives to visit people who lived in the service.” from the report
Easier-to-clean surroundings
New flooring and wipeable chairs were introduced to help reduce infection risks.
“The service had replaced 90% of their chairs for ones that were wipeable to help keep them clean and free of infection.” from the report
Cleaning support
More staff were available to clean during the afternoons and nights.
“Staff to help with cleaning had been increased to help in the afternoons and nights to keep areas as virus free as possible.” from the report
Infection control measures
Inspectors were assured that PPE was being used safely and that the home had arrangements for testing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Policy documents
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured that the COVID-19 policy documents reflected current guidance. The provider was directed to resources to improve its approach.
“We were somewhat assured about the COVID-19 policy documentation being up to date with current guidance.” from the report
- 01How have you updated the COVID-19 policy documents since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that your infection prevention guidance stays in line with current guidance?
- 03What arrangements are currently in place for visiting, including testing and infection control?
- 04How often are communal areas, flooring and wipeable chairs cleaned?
- 05Which areas of care and support were not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the report does not cover the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and responsive care, with some quality checks not consistently recorded.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 1 November 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, training and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable care plans, good support with food and healthcare, and kind treatment that respected privacy, dignity and choice.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in August 2017, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached four regulations. At this inspection, those breaches had been resolved. Inspectors recommended recording the manager's more frequent quality checks, although they said they had no concerns about the quality or safety of care.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with compassion and taking time to support them. People's dignity and privacy were consistently respected.
“Throughout our inspection we observed staff treating people with compassion and respect.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records checked by inspectors had no gaps, stocks were correct and staff were trained. Plans were in place for medicines given covertly or when needed.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe way by suitably trained staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's preferences, communication needs and signs of pain or nutritional problems. They were reviewed monthly or when needs changed.
“People's care records were person centred and detailed their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff respond quickly to call bells and found staffing levels consistently met the provider's assessed needs. An extra evening staff member had been added since the previous inspection.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to care for people in a safe way.” from the report
Good partnership working
Staff worked with healthcare professionals and the reablement team. Advice from professionals was reflected in care plans and used in practice.
“Staff worked collaboratively with other agencies to provide care that met people's care and support needs.” from the report
Quality checks not always recorded
needs fixingThe home carried out regular monitoring, but the manager's more frequent checks were not formally recorded. Inspectors recommended a system to record them.
“Systems were in place to monitor and assess the quality of service being delivered but recording of these checks was not consistent.” from the report
Some first aid training incomplete
needs fixingEight staff had not completed first aid training at the time of the inspection. The manager said at least one trained person was on every shift, and two staff later completed online training.
“We noted that eight staff had not completed their first aid training.” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorInspectors said some parts of the home looked tired. Redecoration was already under way, and people had been asked for their ideas.
“Some areas of the home looked tired and in need of updating.” from the report
- 01How do you now record the more frequent quality checks carried out by the manager?
- 02Have all staff completed the first aid training that was outstanding at the inspection?
- 03What areas of the home have been redecorated or updated since the inspection?
- 04How will you make sure my relative's care plan reflects changes in their needs and preferences?
- 05How do you make sure there is enough staff support during meals and at bedtime?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and inspectors checked the premises, care, medicines, staffing, records and quality systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 November 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 Vineries
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 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.