CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ventress Hall Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and infection control systems were effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and well-led. Audits, care reviews and feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people safe and the home well-led, with earlier breaches no longer applying.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 31 October and 9 November 2022. One inspector and two Experts by Experience spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicines and management records, inspected safety and observed communal areas.
Inspectors found the home safe. Risks such as choking and skin damage were assessed and managed. Medicines were given safely, staffing levels met people's needs, infection control arrangements were effective and safeguarding systems were in place.
The home was also well-led. Audits and reviews were used to monitor care, records were clear, and people, relatives, staff and health professionals were asked for feedback. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Risk management
Risks including choking and skin damage were assessed, recorded in care plans and managed with appropriate safety measures and equipment.
“Risks were identified in areas such as skin integrity and choking.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed and records, stock checks, staff training and audits supported safe medicines management.
“Staff administered and managed people's medicines effectively.” from the report
Staffing and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns and responded to accidents and incidents.
“There were enough staff on duty to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Management and records
The home used audits, care reviews and a wound care tracker to monitor people's care. The records inspected were clear and complete.
“All records we reviewed during the inspection were clear and completed correctly by staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you checking that the improvements to risk assessments and care plans are being maintained?
- 02How do you monitor skin care and pressure damage risks for my relative?
- 03How will you make sure medicines continue to be given on time and recorded correctly?
- 04What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection, and what has changed since then?
- 05How are relatives' feedback and concerns recorded and acted on?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led following earlier breaches; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with wound care, medicines and oversight that could harm people.
This was a focused inspection on 29 June and 1 July 2021. Inspectors looked only at whether the home was safe and well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals, and checked care, wound, repositioning, medicines and management records.
Inspectors found that wound care and skin checks were not always recorded or managed safely. Wound progress was not consistently monitored, repositioning records were incomplete, and some medicines were not given as prescribed. Medicine records, including records for creams and as-needed medicines, also needed improvement.
The systems used by managers to check quality did not identify all these problems. The home had enough staff, recruited safely and managed infection prevention well. People said they felt safe and cared for, but communication with relatives and professionals could be better.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous comprehensive inspection to Requires Improvement. The home breached regulations about safe care and treatment and good governance. The other three question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection because they were not examined during this focused visit.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for, and said staff responded when they needed help.
“I am safe and well cared for. I trust the staff and could speak to them. I have no concerns.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were also completed safely.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Infection prevention
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including visits and protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Positive atmosphere
Inspectors found a calm and positive atmosphere, and the home supported staff wellbeing.
“There was a positive atmosphere in the service.” from the report
Wound and skin care
seriousSkin checks were not recorded consistently. Wounds were sometimes recorded incorrectly, and records did not reliably show whether wounds were improving or worsening.
“Systems were not in place to monitor the progression of wounds.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome people did not receive medicines because they were out of stock. Records for creams and as-needed medicines were not always clear enough to guide safe treatment.
“Medicines were not always administered as prescribed.” from the report
Quality checks
seriousThe home's audits and daily checks did not identify several problems found by inspectors. Records for some safety checks were unclear or incomplete.
“Systems to support good governance were not robust.” from the report
Communication
needs fixingRelatives and professionals said communication needed to improve. Relatives often had to contact the home themselves for updates.
“Communication could be better” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to record and monitor wounds, including photographs, measurements and regular assessments?
- 02How do you now make sure skin checks and repositioning are completed and recorded at the right time?
- 03How do you prevent medicines being out of stock, and how do you check that creams and as-needed medicines are given as prescribed?
- 04What action has been taken to make management audits identify and correct care and medicine recording problems?
- 05How will relatives receive regular updates without having to contact the home first?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 August 2021 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 Ventress Hall Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 October 2011.
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
36 live-in carers within about an hour of Darlington
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 £970 to £1,230 a week. 35 can care for a couple. 11 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.