CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Vancouver Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment, accidents and infection control were managed well.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported. People's health, nutrition, communication and legal rights were addressed, with input from health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful support and found that privacy, dignity, independence, religious and cultural needs were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People had activities, accessible information, support with relationships and culture, and a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Management was viewed positively by people, relatives and staff. The home used feedback, meetings, audits and partnerships with other professionals to improve care.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with strong activities and management.
The home supports up to seven people with learning disabilities. All seven places were occupied during the inspection. Inspectors visited on 20 and 23 December 2019, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional, and reviewed care, medicine, staff and management records.
Inspectors found the home safe. Risks were reviewed, staffing levels were enough, medicines were managed properly and the home was clean. Staff had appropriate recruitment checks and safeguarding training.
Care was based on people's needs, choices and communication. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were supported with health, food, activities, relationships, religious needs and independence.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found consistently good care and management at the time of the inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 29 June 2017.
Safety and staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Risks were identified, reviewed and managed, and staff understood safeguarding procedures.
“There were enough staff to ensure people's needs were safely met.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, communication needs and mental health needs. Staff adapted their approach to help people make choices.
“Care plans contained detailed and personalised information about people's history, likes and dislikes and needs in all aspects of their care and support” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed positive interactions and found that people's dignity, privacy and independence were promoted.
“People's privacy was promoted, and they were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Listening and improvement
The home sought views from people, relatives and staff, and used feedback to introduce more evening activities. It also used audits and action plans to monitor quality.
“The service analysed the results of the survey and made an action plan to ensure improvements were made.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff when a person's support needs change?
- 02How are medicines checked, and how often are staff assessed as competent to support people with them?
- 03How would you adapt communication and daily choices for my relative's particular needs?
- 04Which activities, community outings and cultural or religious opportunities are currently available?
- 05How would you involve my family member and us in reviewing care plans and raising any concerns?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the accommodation and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 January 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, June 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but there was no registered manager at the inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 May 2017. One inspector spoke with people, staff and the manager. They reviewed care records, risk assessments, medicines records, staff files, complaints information and quality checks. They also contacted three health and social care professionals.
The home supported seven people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that people were safe, supported by trained staff and given their medicines as prescribed. People were treated kindly, helped to make choices and supported to maintain relationships and build independence.
Care was personalised and included support with activities, communication, behaviour and healthcare. People could share their views and knew how to complain. The home had no registered manager at the time, although the manager in post had applied for registration.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, so the overall rating remained Good.
People were kept safe
Inspectors found suitable safeguarding training, risk planning, staffing, recruitment and emergency arrangements. Medicines were given in line with prescribers' instructions.
“People continued to be safe in the service.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records described people's needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff supported people with chosen activities and planned responses to anxiety or distress.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, supported important relationships and respected privacy. People were encouraged to make choices and develop everyday skills.
“People received care and support from kind and caring staff.” from the report
Good access to healthcare
Staff supported people to attend appointments with health professionals. Personalised hospital passports were available to help with hospital care.
“People had regular and timely access to healthcare professionals.” from the report
Quality was checked
The manager and deputy carried out checks on areas including medicines, infection control, training and care records. Action plans were used when shortfalls were found.
“The manager and deputy routinely audited the quality of the service people received.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThe home did not have a registered manager on the inspection date. The manager in post was completing an application for registration, so families may want to check the current position.
“The service did not have a registered manager at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's registration with the CQC now been completed?
- 02How are people's medicines checked, including medicines given when required?
- 03How will staff support my relative's communication needs and choices?
- 04What activities and independent living skills could my relative take part in?
- 05How are changes in behaviour, anxiety or health needs reviewed with healthcare professionals?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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 Vancouver Road
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Lewisham
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 £1,260 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.