CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Vallance Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Vallance Residential Care Home: targeted inspection found good infection control practice, but the service was not rated.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 25 May 2021 after receiving concerns about infection control and the use of personal protective equipment by visitors. This was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, supporting safe visits, following social distancing and shielding rules, and managing admissions and testing. Staff had recent infection control training, and the home carried out regular checks on handwashing.
The home supported visits in several ways and helped people keep in touch when they did not want visitors. It also provided activities and one-to-one time for people staying in their rooms or isolating. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe use of PPE
Inspectors found that PPE was readily available and used correctly by staff. The visiting policy set out expected PPE use for visitors.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Infection control checks
Staff had recent infection control training and followed the home's procedures. Regular audits included checks on handwashing.
“The care manager undertook regular IPC audits, including spot checks on staff handwashing to ensure this was done correctly.” from the report
Supported visiting
The home offered different types of visits and helped people stay in contact by phone, email or video call when needed.
“The service was facilitating visits. These consisted of four types; window, garden, screened or in-house visits.” from the report
Activities during restrictions
The home provided a varied activity programme during the pandemic and offered individual time to people isolating or choosing to stay in their rooms.
“There was a varied and plentiful activity schedule.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitor PPE rules and infection control procedures kept up to date now?
- 02How often do you audit staff handwashing and other infection control practice, and can families see the results?
- 03How do you manage testing and isolation when someone is admitted to the home?
- 04How are visits arranged for people who do not want window, garden, screened or in-house visits?
- 05What ratings or inspection information is available for care planning, medicines, staffing and the home's leadership?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only, so the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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, December 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safeguarding and management checks were not reliable enough.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 30 September 2019. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices, helped to access healthcare, and given personalised care. Inspectors also found enough staff, safe medicines practice and good infection control.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. Some safeguarding incidents were not recognised or reported correctly. Management checks did not reliably identify risks or changes in people's needs, including significant weight loss.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published on 14 January 2017. The report says improvements were needed and that the provider had to send CQC a report explaining what action it would take.
Kind relationships
People spoke positively about staff, and inspectors observed warm and reassuring interactions. Staff knew people well and created a friendly atmosphere.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well and with whom they had developed positive relationships.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's routines, preferences, backgrounds and communication needs. People could choose when to get up, go to bed and take part in activities.
“People were continuing to receive a personalised service.” from the report
Effective care
Staff had relevant training and followed professional advice about people's health needs. People were supported with food, drink and access to healthcare.
“People's needs, and choices had been assessed in a holistic way to take account of people's physical and mental health and their social needs.” from the report
Medicines and staffing
Inspectors found that people received medicines when needed and that there were enough suitably recruited staff.
“People were receiving their medicines safely. Staff had received training and were assessed as competent to administer people's medicines.” from the report
Dignity and choice
Staff sought consent, respected privacy and encouraged people to do things for themselves. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People's dignity was protected, and staff understood the importance of supporting people to remain as independent as possible.” from the report
Safeguarding was not reliable
seriousSome incidents involving distressing behaviour were not recognised as safeguarding events or reported to the local authority. Inspectors said some people had felt unsafe.
“This meant that some people had felt unsafe at times.” from the report
Management checks missed risks
seriousThe home's monitoring systems did not always identify problems. A significant unplanned weight loss was not noticed promptly, and the registered manager did not carry out their own quality audits.
“There was a lack of effective systems and processes to enable the registered manager to assess monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided.” from the report
Policies were not all up to date
needs fixingSome policies did not reflect current local arrangements. This included the safeguarding policy.
“Polices were in place to guide staff but some were not up to date.” from the report
- 01How do you now identify, record and report safeguarding incidents to the local authority?
- 02What regular audits does the registered manager personally complete to check safety and care quality?
- 03How do you make sure unplanned weight loss or other changes in people's health are noticed and acted on quickly?
- 04What action was taken in response to the two breaches identified in this report, and what evidence can you show of improvement?
- 05How are staff supported to manage behaviour that may frighten or distress other people living at the home?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and led to ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 December 2019 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 Vallance Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Vallance Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Vallance Residential Care Home →
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.