CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Valley View Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Inadequate and remains in special measures; inspectors found kind care but serious safety, medicines and care-planning failures.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating. Inspectors visited on 10 and 11 July 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was not always safe. Medicines were not always given as prescribed, risks were not properly assessed or managed, and records did not show that people with high nutritional needs received the support set out in their care plans. Some people also had restrictions without the required mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions.
There were positive findings. Staff were kind and respectful, staffing levels were considered sufficient, recruitment checks were safe, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. However, care plans and management checks were not reliable enough to make sure people's needs were consistently met.
The overall rating remains Inadequate, and the home remains in special measures. The caring rating improved to Good, while effective changed from Requires Improvement to Inadequate and well-led improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. CQC said it would monitor progress and normally re-inspect within six months.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking to people politely and supporting them with dignity. People said staff were caring.
“We saw many examples of staff approaching and responding to people in a kind and caring way and staff appeared to know people well.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Infection control
The home had arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including the effective use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Food presentation and choice
Although nutritional monitoring was poor for some people, inspectors saw pleasant mealtimes with plentiful, well-presented food and choices.
“We observed people had pleasant mealtime experiences and were provided with choice and of food and drink, which looked well-presented and plentiful.” from the report
Medicines were not managed safely
seriousSome medicines were not given as prescribed. Records and storage arrangements were inconsistent, and some required instructions or protocols were missing.
“The provider had failed to ensure safe medicine management systems were in place.” from the report
Risks and nutrition were not controlled
seriousRisk assessments did not always give staff the guidance they needed. Records did not show that some people received high-calorie snacks or other nutritional support required by their care plans.
“The lack of robust risk management processes meant people were not protected from harm or injury.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards were missing
seriousSome people had restrictions, including sensor mats, without the required capacity assessments and best-interest decisions.
“Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not in place for some people despite having restrictions placed on them.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingCare plans were not always completed promptly or personalised enough. Separate electronic systems also meant important information was not always available to all staff.
“People's needs were not always appropriately assessed and their needs were not clearly reflected within their care plans.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome people did not have plans for how they wanted to spend their time and were observed sitting for long periods.
“We observed this meant people spent long periods of time sitting in their rooms, in communal areas.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits and other quality checks did not identify or address the problems inspectors found. Actions after incidents were not always followed up.
“Systems to record, assess, monitor and improve the service were not sufficiently robust.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that every medicine is stored, recorded and given exactly as prescribed?
- 02What has been changed to make sure risk assessments contain clear, personalised instructions for staff?
- 03How do you now record high-calorie snacks, fluid intake and other nutritional support for people at risk?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and legal authorisations checked when restrictions such as sensor mats are used?
- 05What is the current process for completing and updating care plans, and how are records shared between care staff and health professionals?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of the service after the previous Inadequate rating, with infection prevention and control also checked as part of the Safe key question. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2023 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, September 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious shortfalls in safety, staffing, care records and management.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 1 and 3 November 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
People were not always safe. Risks such as falls, poor nutrition, weight loss and unexplained bruising were not managed properly. Medicines were not managed safely, and some people did not have the required mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions.
Some staff were kind and respectful, but care was sometimes task focused. There were limited activities, care plans did not always reflect people's needs, and the home relied heavily on agency staff who did not always receive enough induction or information.
The overall rating was Inadequate. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while effective, caring and responsive were rated Requires Improvement. This was the first inspection of the newly registered service, and the home was placed in special measures.
Recruitment checks
The recruitment process was described as safe and thorough. References and criminal record checks were completed before staff started work.
“Recruitment checks including references and criminal record checks were completed before staff started working in the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention arrangements were in place. Staff used protective equipment correctly and the premises were clean and hygienic.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Food and drinks
People were offered food, snacks and drinks throughout the day. Feedback about the food and drinks was generally positive.
“People were offered snacks and drinks throughout the day and staff encouraged people to eat and drink.” from the report
Some kind care
Inspectors saw examples of friendly, kind support. Staff helped people with eating and supported people to maintain their appearance.
“People looked well cared for and staff had spent time supporting people to maintain their appearance.” from the report
Complaints handling
The home had systems for handling complaints, and the complaints reviewed had been dealt with appropriately.
“Complaints raised had been dealt with appropriately and people and relatives were satisfied with the outcomes reached.” from the report
Risks were not controlled
seriousImportant risks, including falls, poor nutrition and weight loss, were not consistently assessed, recorded or acted on. Incidents were not always reported or used to prevent future harm.
“The lack of robust risk management processes meant people were not protected from harm or injury.” from the report
Medicines were unsafe
seriousAllergy information, instructions for medicines given when needed, covert medicine arrangements and storage temperature checks were not always in place. Staff competence checks were also limited.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were not in place to ensure medicine management was safe.” from the report
Safeguarding concerns
seriousThe home did not properly investigate or follow up unexplained bruising. Several staff did not know the whistleblowing procedure.
“The lack of action taken to investigate unknown bruises and act on concerns meant people were not protected from the risk of harm or abuse.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingActivities were occasional rather than planned. Some people spent long periods with little stimulation, and records showed gaps in support for individual activities.
“Activities were done on an ad-hoc basis and not planned.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the way falls, nutrition, hydration and weight loss risks are assessed and reviewed?
- 02How are medicines now checked, including allergies, medicines given when needed, covert medicines and storage temperatures?
- 03What dementia and rehabilitation training has each member of staff completed, and how do you check their competence?
- 04How do you ensure agency staff receive an induction, handover and time to read each person's care plan?
- 05What regular audits now check care plans, safeguarding concerns, incidents and whether improvement actions have been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection of all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; the report says there was no previous inspection rating for this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2023 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 Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Inadequate rating throughout.
- September 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingstayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2023InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 October 2019.
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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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 £1,250 a week. 87 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 understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.