CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valeries Care Home and Valeries Home Care
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2024
Rated Requires Improvement, with an Inadequate well-led rating; inspectors found risks in safeguarding, medicines, cleanliness and oversight.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection after concerns about safety, dignity and infection control. Inspectors and experts by experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a professional. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Medicines were not always managed correctly. Some incidents involving harm were not reported to the safeguarding team. Risks such as weight loss, diabetes, fire evacuation and environmental hazards were not always properly assessed or acted on. Inspectors also found poor cleanliness in bathrooms, the kitchen and laundry areas.
The home was not always effective or person-centred. People did not always receive suitable support at mealtimes, including help to eat and a varied diet. Mental capacity assessments were not always clear. Staff were described positively by people and relatives, and the home worked well with health and social care professionals.
Leadership was rated Inadequate. Audits had not found or fixed important problems, and the provider failed to notify the CQC about some incidents or show written evidence that its duty of candour had been followed. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection in March 2020 to Requires Improvement.
Consistent staff team
The home had an established staff team and did not need agency staff. Inspectors said this helped people receive consistent care from familiar staff.
“There was an established staff team at the service which meant the service did not need to use agency.” from the report
Positive professional relationships
The home worked with GPs, district nurses, chiropodists and the local authority. Records of contact with health and social care professionals were clear and up to date.
“The provider had good working relationships with health and social care professionals.” from the report
Respect for choices
Inspectors observed that staff sought consent and supported people to choose how their care was provided.
“Staff were patient, kind and upheld peoples' rights to choose how they wished their support to be delivered.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousTwo incidents that caused harm were not reported to the local safeguarding team. A further incident exposed a significant risk and immediate steps were not taken to prevent it happening again.
“We found 2 incidents which resulted in harm to residents had not been reported to the local authority safeguarding team.” from the report
Unsafe medicines management
seriousRecords showed some doses of as-needed paracetamol appeared to be given too close together. Some medicines and creams did not have opening dates, and the medicines fridge was initially unlocked.
“Medicines were not managed safely. This was a breach of regulation 12 (2)(g) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.” from the report
Poor infection control and cleanliness
seriousInspectors found dirty communal bathrooms, kitchen areas and laundry facilities. They said these conditions created a risk of infection and cross-contamination.
“Many areas of the home were not clean. Communal bathrooms were not clean with stains in toilets and on commodes as well as visible dirt on toilet floors and an on sinks.” from the report
Poor mealtime support
seriousPeople were not always offered a varied diet or helped promptly to eat. Menus were not presented in a clear or accessible way, and one person called out twice before receiving help.
“Staff interaction with people during the mealtimes was minimal, and staff were slow to recognise when people needed help to eat.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousAudits did not identify or fix several problems found by inspectors. The provider also did not consistently analyse incidents for patterns or show that required actions had been completed.
“Regular audits had taken place. However, the audits were not robust and had failed to identify and address some of the concerns we found during the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to investigate and report safeguarding incidents, and how do you check that risks are reduced afterwards?
- 02How are medicine administration records now checked, including the timing of as-needed medicines and opening dates?
- 03What cleaning schedule and audits are now in place for the bathrooms, kitchen and laundry, and can we see evidence that they are completed?
- 04How will staff make sure people receive prompt, individual help at mealtimes and are offered suitable food choices?
- 05How are care plans and mental capacity assessments being reviewed to make consent and individual risks clear to staff?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and the ratings for uninspected questions were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2024 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 2022
Targeted inspection; the home was inspected but not rated, and inspectors found good infection controls and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, visiting arrangements and whether staff shortages affected care.
Inspectors found that visitors were given protective equipment and asked to take lateral flow tests. Staff had infection control training, supplies of protective equipment and tests were available, and people were admitted safely after COVID-19 checks and risk assessments.
People told inspectors that staff made them feel safe. Staff covered unexpected absences, which helped provide continuity from people who knew residents well. Visiting was supported through visits, telephone calls, video calls and emails.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a quality rating, and it should not be treated as a full assessment of the home.
Infection control
Inspectors found that the provider had effective arrangements for protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safe admissions
People were tested before admission, and the provider used individual risk assessments when people moved in from home, hospital or another care home.
“People were admitted into the service safely.” from the report
Continuity of care
Staff volunteered to cover unexpected absences, with extra support available from elsewhere in the provider's care group. Inspectors said this supported consistent care from staff who knew people well.
“This ensured that people had experienced good continuity and consistency of care during the pandemic, from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Support for visiting
The home supported visits by family members and essential care givers. It also helped people keep in touch by telephone, video calls and email.
“Other methods of maintaining contact between people and their families were being effectively supported.” from the report
Reassuring communication
People told inspectors that staff made them feel safe. Staff adapted the use of protective equipment to help people communicate and reduce anxiety.
“People consistently told us that staff made them feel safe.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and when were they last reviewed?
- 02How would you cover staff absence now, and would people still be supported by staff who know them well?
- 03How are family visits currently arranged, including visits for people who need essential care or have particular vulnerabilities?
- 04Is the home care service now operating, given that it was not providing home care at the time of this inspection?
- 05What ratings or assessments are available for effective, caring, responsive and well-led care, as these areas were not assessed in this report?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staff pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 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.
Every inspection of Valeries Care Home and Valeries Home Care
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Valeries Care Home and Valeries Home Care →
- April 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Valeries Care Home and Valeries Home Care →
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.