CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valley Road - Resource Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, risk plans, safeguarding procedures, safe medicine systems, accident reviews and good infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and supervision. People were supported to make choices, eat food they liked, access health professionals and attend usual day services.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Staff respected privacy and dignity, supported independence and understood how people communicated.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans contained personal information and were reviewed before respite stays. People were supported with activities they chose, and relatives received information through daily diaries.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and staff were described as approachable and supportive. Audits, feedback systems and action plans were in place, and earlier improvements to management checks had been sustained.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised respite care, with improvements in management sustained.
The inspection was unannounced on 10 January 2019. One inspector visited, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines, staff records and service checks. The report also records contact on 15 January 2019.
The home was supporting five people at the time and provided respite care for up to seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people felt safe, staff were kind and skilled, medicines were managed safely, and care was based on people's choices and communication needs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Management had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The earlier problem was with quality checks, but inspectors found the improvements had been sustained and the home had reached Good for Well-led.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and knew how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and looked forward to staying at Valley Road – Resource Centre.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were signed in and out, checked by two staff and given by staff whose skills had been assessed.
“Medicine records had been completed accurately and were checked by two staff to reduce the risk of errors occurring.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being patient and respectful. Staff understood people's communication and supported them to make choices.
“Staff were observed to be kind, caring and patient with their approach.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, interests and communication needs. People could choose meals and activities.
“Care plans were in place and contained person-centred information such as people's backgrounds and personal interests.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had introduced regular audits and action plans. Inspectors found the improvements made after the previous inspection had continued.
“At this inspection, we found the improvements implemented had been sustained and the service had improved to good.” from the report
Sensory room still being developed
minorThe sensory room was not yet complete at the time of the inspection. People and relatives had been asked what should be included.
“A sensory room was in the process of being developed.” from the report
- 01How do you decide the staffing level for each person's respite stay and changing support needs?
- 02How are medicines checked when a person arrives for respite and when they return home?
- 03How will you continue to monitor the quality checks that inspectors found had improved?
- 04What is the current position of the sensory room and when will it be available?
- 05How will you make sure our relative's communication needs and personal choices are updated before each stay?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC areas, including care, medicines, staff records, complaints and management checks. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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, June 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found improvements, but the well-led rating remained Requires Improvement because consistent good practice had not yet been shown over time.
This was an announced focused inspection on 2 June 2017. It checked whether the home had fixed problems found at the comprehensive inspection in May 2016. The inspection looked only at whether the home was well-led.
Inspectors found that the provider had followed its improvement plan. Recruitment records, maintenance records, medicine audits and fluid records were available. The home had also notified CQC about significant events as required.
The overall rating was Good. However, well-led was rated Requires Improvement because CQC needed to see consistent good practice over time before improving that rating.
Improved records
Recruitment records, medicine audits and fluid balance records were available for inspection. Maintenance records were also readily available and well maintained.
“We found records to be accurate, up to date and available for inspection.” from the report
Safety checks
The home had records showing checks of the building and equipment, including fire alarms, bed rails and other equipment.
“Tests of the fire alarm, bed rails and equipment were undertaken to confirm they were in safe working order.” from the report
Notifications made
The manager had notified CQC about significant events and incidents in line with legal responsibilities.
“The registered manager had informed CQC of significant events in a timely way by submitting the required notifications.” from the report
Positive experience
The person using the service and the relative spoken with said they were happy with the care and service. They described staff as kind and caring.
“They told us they enjoyed their visits for respite and all staff were very kind and caring.” from the report
Consistency still needed
needs fixingAlthough the earlier problems had been addressed, CQC did not raise the well-led rating because it needed to see good practice maintained over time.
“We could not improve the rating for well led from requires improvement because to do so requires consistent good practice over time.” from the report
Some equipment-check gaps
minorInspectors found occasional gaps in equipment checks. The manager said these happened when the home was unoccupied because respite care was not needed.
“We noted there were occasional gaps in checking, equipment.” from the report
- 01How have you kept the recruitment, maintenance, medicine and fluid-record systems accurate since this inspection?
- 02How do you make sure equipment checks are completed when the home is unoccupied for periods of time?
- 03What evidence can you show that good practice has been consistent since the rating for well-led remained Requires Improvement?
- 04When was the next comprehensive inspection expected, and would it reassess all five questions?
- 05How are significant events and incidents recorded and reported to CQC now?
This was a focused inspection of well-led only, to check improvements after the May 2016 inspection; the other four question areas were not assessed in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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 Road - Resource Centre
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Valley Road - Resource Centre →
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Valley Road - Resource Centre →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,010 to £1,290 a week. 27 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.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.