CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valley View and Penshaw House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, recruitment, cleanliness and accidents were managed well, but some staff had limited knowledge of evacuation procedures and staff deployment needed review.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported. People received help with eating, drinking and healthcare, and the home followed the legal process for decisions made for people who lacked capacity.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and treated people with dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to remain independent and helped to keep links with relatives and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities were available. Some care records needed review, although people could raise concerns and complaints were dealt with effectively.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider monitored quality and the new manager had a clear plan for improvement. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views, and staff morale and teamwork were good.
What inspectors found, May 2020
Valley View and Penshaw House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some concerns about staff visibility, evacuation knowledge and care records.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 March 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care, medicines, staff recruitment and management records.
The home was judged Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Medicines were managed safely, the home was clean, staff were kind, and people received support with health, activities and relationships.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Staff were not always visible and some staff felt there were not enough people during busy periods. Some staff had limited knowledge of evacuation procedures, and some care records needed review. The overall Good rating remained the same as at the previous inspection, published in 2017.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were happy with the care. Staff supported privacy, dignity, independence and personal choices.
“Staff were kind and treated people with respect.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Staff who gave medicines were trained, and regular audits and checks were completed.
“People's medicines were managed safely by staff who were trained in administering medicines.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities, outings and events of their choice. Staff also supported people to maintain important relationships.
“People took part in activities, events and outings of their choice.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider had systems to monitor care and the manager responded positively to feedback during the inspection.
“The provider monitored the quality of the service to make sure a high standard of care was delivered.” from the report
Staff visibility and deployment
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed views about staffing. Inspectors saw that staff were not always visible and recommended reviewing how staff were deployed.
“We recommend the provider consider current guidance on the levels and deployment of staff and acts to update their practice to ensure enough staff are available at all times of the day.” from the report
Evacuation knowledge
seriousEach person had an evacuation plan, but some staff did not know the evacuation procedures well enough. The manager said this would be addressed.
“However, some staff had limited knowledge of evacuation procedures.” from the report
Care records needed review
needs fixingCare plans were detailed and personalised, but some records were not up to date. The manager said this would be addressed.
“People had personalised care plans. They described the care and support people required to meet their needs. However, some care records needed review.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staff are visible and available during busy periods, especially at mealtimes?
- 02What training and checks have been completed to make sure all staff understand evacuation procedures?
- 03Which care records needed review, and how do you check that they are now accurate and up to date?
- 04How has the new manager's plan for continued improvement been put into practice?
- 05How do you monitor staffing levels and respond when staff report that there are not enough people on duty?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 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, August 2017
Valley View and The Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with a few records needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 12 and 13 July 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, maintenance records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, detailed care plans, kind relationships and a good range of activities. People were supported to make choices and stay involved in the home and local community.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement. Electrical safety work had been completed and staff training was up to date. Inspectors found some minor inconsistencies in records, but these were addressed during the inspection or had action planned.
Improved safety
The electrical installation had been made safe after this was a concern at the previous inspection. Other safety checks, emergency planning and equipment servicing were also in place.
“At this inspection we found the provider had ensured the electrical system had been serviced and remedial action taken to ensure it was safe.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and checked safely. Staff had guidance for medicines given when needed, including ways to recognise pain for people who could not explain it.
“We reviewed a sample of people's medicines administration records (MARs) and found there to be no errors.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw warm relationships, respect for privacy and support for people's dignity and choices.
“Staff interacted warmly with people who used the service and had built positive, friendly relationships with them.” from the report
Activities and community links
People took part in varied activities and outings, including trips in the minibus. Staff joined activities, helping create a lively and inclusive atmosphere.
“Individual and group activities were well planned, with people's involvement, and meant people enjoyed a range of outings.” from the report
Management and improvement
The manager had acted on previous concerns and used audits and an action plan to identify and address improvements. Staff, relatives and professionals expressed confidence in the management.
“We found they had made the necessary improvements to the service since the last inspection, namely ensuring electrical works had been completed and staff training was well managed and monitored.” from the report
Topical medicine records
needs fixingRecords for applying creams were not consistent. Some used body maps while others used written descriptions, although the manager made the records consistent during the inspection.
“With regard to topical medicines (creams) we found there were some inconsistencies in the systems used.” from the report
Capacity assessment wording
minorSome wording in capacity assessments was difficult to understand. The manager agreed to review the standard wording.
“We found however some of the wording on these capacity assessments was unwieldy and confusing.” from the report
Attendance at residents' meetings
minorAttendance at the Links Committee was low, although inspectors considered the meetings a useful way for people to raise concerns and suggestions.
“Whilst we saw current attendance was low, these meetings are good practice.” from the report
Diabetes care detail
minorOne care plan did not contain enough useful detail about diabetes for staff. The provider updated it on the day of the inspection.
“We found information in one person's care plan pertaining to their diabetes could have more useful detail for staff” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure records for applying creams are consistent and kept up to date?
- 02What changes have been made to make capacity assessment wording clear and decision-specific?
- 03How will you encourage more people and relatives to attend the Links Committee or give feedback in other ways?
- 04What dementia-friendly improvements, such as memory boxes, murals and signage, have been completed since this inspection?
- 05How do you check that care plans contain enough detail for conditions such as diabetes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; the previous inspection in July 2016 had rated the service Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 August 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 View and Penshaw House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Valley View and Penshaw House →
- August 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Valley View and Penshaw House →
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 May 2015.
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 Sunderland
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 £950 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.