CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valkyrie Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but weaknesses in risk management, records, medicines and leadership created increased safety risk.
The inspection took place on 12 and 15 September 2023. It was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second. The inspector spoke with all five people living there, three staff members and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for caring. People said they were happy, supported and treated with dignity. They were involved in care decisions, had named key workers and were supported to keep their independence, relationships and interests.
The other four areas were rated Requires Improvement. Care plans and risk assessments lacked important information, medicine systems were not robust, staff training and recruitment checks needed strengthening, and governance systems did not identify or address problems effectively.
The overall rating fell from Good at the last inspection, published on 30 January 2018, to Requires Improvement. The CQC found no evidence that people had been harmed, but said there was an increased risk that people could be harmed and identified breaches of two regulations.
Kind and respectful care
People were happy and relaxed with staff. Staff respected people's individuality, dignity and choices.
“People were happy and relaxed in each other's company and in the company of staff.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to remain independent. They could personalise their rooms and lock them if they wished.
“People were supported to maintain their independence.” from the report
Access to health support
People were supported to attend appointments with GPs and other health professionals, including mental health services and district nurses.
“People were supported to attend appointments with other healthcare professionals such as psychiatrists and district nurses.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
The home had staff training, protective equipment, cleaning rotas and environmental checks to help prevent and control infection.
“There were cleaning rotas and environmental checks in place.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousCare plans and risk assessments did not clearly explain how to support some people's health needs, including catheter care, diabetes and swallowing difficulties. Fire evacuation plans and a grab bag were also missing.
“People were at risk of receiving unsafe care due to support plans not containing all the information staff needed to deliver care safely.” from the report
Medicine safety checks
seriousSome medicine guidance was missing, including instructions for medicines given when needed. Stock medicine was unaccounted for, and staff medicine competency had not been checked or recorded.
“Although we found no evidence people were not receiving their medicines safely there was a lack of support plans and risk assessments in place.” from the report
Care records not personalised
needs fixingRecords contained too little detail and were not always updated when people's needs changed. This left too much reliance on staff knowing people’s preferences.
“There was a lack of detail and person-centred focus in documentation and an over reliance on staff knowledge of how people preferred to be supported.” from the report
Training and recruitment
needs fixingTraining was mainly computer-based, its effectiveness was not checked consistently and supervision was irregular. Some staff did not have up-to-date DBS checks in line with the provider's policy.
“The provider did not have systems in place to ensure there was a robust training package in place.” from the report
Weak oversight and environment
needs fixingManagement systems did not reliably monitor quality or drive improvements. The building looked tired and dated, and the garden was overgrown and cluttered.
“The registered manager did not have robust governance systems in place to ensure they were meeting regulatory requirements and driving improvements.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to care plans and risk assessments for catheter care, diabetes, swallowing difficulties and other individual health needs?
- 02How do you now check staff competency to administer medicines, and how do you account for all medicine stock?
- 03Are personal evacuation plans and a fire evacuation grab bag now in place for every person living here?
- 04How are staff training, supervision and up-to-date DBS checks being monitored?
- 05What is the timetable for updating the care records and refurbishing the building and garden?
This inspection considered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, and reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records for the five people living there. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 October 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, January 2018
Valkyrie Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with more activities being considered.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 January 2018. One inspector spoke with three people, the registered manager and two care workers. They also reviewed care files, staff recruitment records, support records, audits and policies.
The home supported up to six people living with mental health issues. Five people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines systems, trained staff and support for people's rights, independence and healthcare.
People described staff as kind and supportive. Care was personalised, people were involved in their care planning, and they could follow their own interests and use local community facilities. The registered manager used audits and feedback to monitor the service.
The overall rating was Good, and all five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were ordered, stored, administered and recorded safely by trained staff.
“People received their medication safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Respect and independence
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence.
“Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible whilst supporting them with their preferences on how they wished to spend their time.” from the report
Personalised care
People and their relatives helped shape care plans. The home made practical changes to the environment to support people's individual needs.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Support during setbacks
The home worked with other healthcare providers when someone relapsed, helping them keep their home and return when stable.
“This meant that people would not lose their home when they deteriorated and were reassured that once they reached stability they could return to permanently live at the service.” from the report
Monitoring and improvement
The registered manager used audits and feedback to check the quality of care and make changes where needed.
“All information from audits was used in a meaningful way to ensure the quality of the service was maintained and to assist them to continually drive further improvements.” from the report
More activities requested
minorFeedback questionnaires identified a request for more activities. The registered manager was addressing this with people, so families may wish to check what is now available.
“One theme from the questionnaires was for more activities which the registered manager was addressing with people.” from the report
- 01What activities are currently available, following the request for more activities in the inspection feedback?
- 02How would you support my relative if their mental health deteriorated or they needed support from other healthcare providers?
- 03How are medicines checked and monitored, and how are any problems identified through audits followed up?
- 04How will my relative be involved in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 05How would you support my relative to use local community facilities and maintain their independence?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the report says the home remained Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 January 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 Valkyrie Lodge
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- October 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £960 to £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.