CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valley House in the Vineyard Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, clean surroundings and safe medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People received support with eating, drinking, health appointments and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people kindly and respectfully. People's privacy, dignity, equality, independence and involvement in decisions were promoted.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines. People had a wide range of activities, community links and opportunities to spend time with family.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The managers were well regarded and staff felt supported. Audits, meetings and feedback systems were in place to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong support for choice and independence.
The inspection took place on 19 October 2019. One inspector spoke with all eight people living at the home, staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found people were safe and well supported. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, risks were assessed and medicines were managed safely. Staff understood safeguarding and people's individual needs.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They had choices about their routines, food, clothing and activities. Care plans were personal to each person, and the home supported links with families, the local community and health professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same rating as at the previous inspection, published on 26 January 2017.
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, risks and preferred ways of being supported. Staff knew people well and adapted support to their individual routines.
“Care plans were person centred. People's care and support needs were prioritised and were clearly documented.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly interactions and found that staff respected privacy, dignity and people's preferences about how they were addressed.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence were promoted and respected by staff.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in cooking, gardening, work at a day centre, trips to town and other activities. Families and neighbours were included in celebrations.
“People had weekly activity schedules that involved trips out to the Fifth Trust day centre, a charitable organisation that supports people with learning disabilities.” from the report
Strong management and oversight
Staff, relatives and professionals spoke positively about the management. The home used audits, staff meetings, surveys and feedback to monitor quality.
“A robust system was in place for auditing medicines with checks being made daily, weekly and monthly.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you update my relative's care plan and risk assessments if their health or support needs changed?
- 02How would my relative be involved in decisions about their daily routine, activities and healthcare?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, including support to take part independently?
- 04How would you support my relative if they became anxious or distressed, and what positive behaviour support would be used?
- 05How would you keep our family informed and respond if we raised a concern or complaint?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the care provided and the care home's premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with people supported to be independent and active.
The inspection took place on 14 and 15 December 2016. It was announced at short notice because the home is small and people are often out with staff support. One inspector spoke with everyone living there, observed staff, spoke with staff and care managers, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
Inspectors found that people were safe and well supported. There were enough trained staff, medicines were managed safely, risks were assessed, and the home was clean. Staff understood safeguarding and had suitable recruitment checks.
People were involved in their care, daily household tasks, meals and activities. Inspectors found staff to be kind and caring, and said care was personalised. The home had systems to check its quality and address any problems.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This means the inspection found the service met the relevant standards at the time of the visit. The previous inspection in February 2014 had found no breaches of regulations.
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills and qualifications. Recruitment checks were completed before staff supported people.
“There were enough staff who were sufficiently qualified and competent to support the people at the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Records showed no gaps, and some people were supported to manage certain medicines themselves.
“Medication administration records (MAR) contained no gaps indicating that people had received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and showed genuine interest in their wellbeing. People were involved in decisions about their care and everyday lives.
“Staff were kind, caring and compassionate, and genuinely enjoyed spending time with people.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People took part in activities and work linked to their interests and abilities. These included gardening, arts, cooking, sport and other work opportunities.
“The service prioritised ensuring people had active fulfilling lives.” from the report
Quality checks
The home regularly reviewed care, safety, medicines, training and other areas. Actions were recorded and checked when improvements were needed.
“Systems were in place to review the quality of the service and any shortfalls identified were addressed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is staffing adjusted when several people are out or when special events are planned?
- 02How often is the registered manager present at the home, and how is management cover provided when they are at the other service?
- 03How are staff's skills in administering medicines checked each year?
- 04How are people and their families involved when care plans or medicine support arrangements change?
- 05Which current activities, work opportunities and training are available for the person we are considering placing here?
This inspection covered all five questions and considered the overall quality of the home, including care, medicines, staffing, records and quality monitoring. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 2017 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 Valley House in the Vineyard Limited
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Valley House in the Vineyard Limited →
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Valley House in the Vineyard Limited →
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2010.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.