CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valley Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found safe staffing, medicines management, infection control and stronger checks since the previous inspection.
This was a targeted inspection on 8 September 2020. Inspectors followed up concerns from the previous inspection about staffing levels, medicines and the provider’s checks on quality and safety.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff were safely recruited and trained. Medicines were managed properly, the home was clean, and protective equipment was available.
Management checks had been fully put in place since the last inspection. Staff and people spoke positively about the management and the care. The inspection did not assess every part of the service.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely and promptly. Staffing was based on people’s individual needs.
“There were enough staff deployed to ensure people's support needs were safely met.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean. Staff had infection control training and protective equipment was readily available.
“The home was clean and effective measures were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider had put in place a broad set of audits and checks since the previous inspection. These covered all aspects of service delivery.
“They had effective audits and quality assurance systems in place. These had been fully implemented since the last inspection and covered all aspects of service delivery.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels still being calculated from people’s individual needs?
- 02How often are medicines audits completed, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 03How do you check that staff remain competent to administer medicines?
- 04What evidence can you show that the new audits and quality checks have continued since this inspection?
- 05When is the next comprehensive inspection expected, and what was the previous Requires Improvement rating based on?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns about staffing, medicines, audit processes and infection control; all five key questions were not assessed and the previous ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 2020 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, July 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but staffing feedback and management checks still needed attention.
Inspectors visited on 16 and 20 May 2019 without notice on the first day. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, maintenance and quality checks, and watched staff supporting people.
The home had improved significantly since the previous inspection. Care was rated Good for being effective, caring and responsive. People were generally treated kindly, their needs and preferences were recorded, and staff supported people with meals, healthcare, activities and decisions about their care.
Safe and well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Some people, relatives and staff felt staffing could still be tight, although one extra full-time care worker was added during the inspection. Medicine temperature checks were not always recorded, and some newer quality checks had not yet been tested over time.
Requires Improvement means the home was not consistently meeting the standard expected in every area. The report says it had improved from the previous inspection, but CQC would continue to monitor information about the home and could inspect sooner if concerns arose.
Kind and respectful care
People consistently described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity, respecting privacy and asking for consent.
“Everyone we spoke with said the staff were kind and caring.” from the report
Improved care records
Care records had become more complete and person-centred. They included people's likes, dislikes, important information and communication needs.
“The quality of people's care records had significantly improved and included information on their likes, dislikes and what was important to them.” from the report
Medicines and safeguarding
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and there were systems to protect people from abuse.
“We found medicines were managed in a safe way and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Food and activities
People were offered meal choices, including alternatives for those who did not want the main options. The home also provided activities, entertainment and outings based on people's interests.
“The service provided a stimulating programme of activities, entertainment and outings to keep people occupied.” from the report
Improving leadership
The new manager was described as approachable and organised. Staff communication and quality monitoring had improved since the previous inspection.
“There were clear signs of improvement at the service, which was reflected in feedback from people, visitors and staff.” from the report
Staffing could still feel tight
needs fixingSome people, relatives and staff said there were not always enough staff or that staff were rushed. The manager added one full-time care worker during the inspection, but the home was told to keep considering people's and staff's views when setting staffing levels.
“People who used the service commented, "I think they are short staffed. There's just too much for them to do” from the report
Medicine temperature records
needs fixingMedicine temperature checks were not always recorded in the upstairs and downstairs clinic rooms. The manager said checks would be carried out consistently.
“We found medicine temperature checks were not always recorded in the upstairs and downstairs clinic rooms.” from the report
Quality checks were not fully established
needs fixingSome checks, including those covering meals, recruitment files and the environment, had only recently started. Inspectors needed to see them working effectively over time.
“Some quality assurance processes were newly implemented, such as checks to the mealtime experience, staff recruitment files and the environment.” from the report
Listening to feedback
minorResident and relative meetings had lapsed in 2018, and the report said a stronger approach to gathering views might have identified staffing issues sooner.
“Had the service had a more robust approach to gathering and listening to feedback, issues such as staffing, were more likely to be addressed before we came to inspect.” from the report
- 01How have you used people's, relatives' and staff's feedback to decide current staffing levels?
- 02How do you record medicine temperatures in both clinic rooms, and can I see recent records?
- 03What evidence shows that the newer quality checks for meals, recruitment files and the environment are now working reliably?
- 04How often are resident and relative meetings held now, and how are concerns followed up?
This was a scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, following the previous Requires Improvement rating; the first day was unannounced and the second day was announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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 Valley Park Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2018.
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
At least 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.