CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Vermont House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood their risks. Medicines were given as prescribed, although fire safety work had not been completed promptly before the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff had relevant training, and people were supported with food, healthcare, independence and decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff encouraged people to make decisions and do as much as possible for themselves.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans reflected people's routines and preferences. People were supported to take part in activities, go out, communicate in ways that suited them and keep in contact with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- People and staff spoke positively about the management, but quality checks had not led to timely action on fire safety, recruitment records and refurbishment.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Vermont House is Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 27 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, take part in activities and maintain relationships. Inspectors found that medicines, healthcare support, safeguarding and staff training were generally managed well.
The overall rating was Good, but Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Audits had identified problems with fire doors, staff recruitment records and the condition of the building, but action had not been taken quickly enough. The provider replaced the fire doors and started refurbishment after the inspection.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff as friendly and supportive. Inspectors saw people appearing comfortable with staff and observed friendly interactions.
“People and relatives made positive comments about the staff that supported them, describing them as friendly and supportive.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to choose activities they enjoyed, including trips to shops, museums, meals and football matches. Staff respected people who preferred not to go out.
“People were supported to take part in meaningful activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Medicines and healthcare
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff supported people to attend health appointments and worked with healthcare professionals.
“A review of the records confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Fire safety action was delayed
seriousA fire risk assessment had identified that two fire doors needed replacing, but there was no recorded timescale and the work only happened after the inspection. This was a safety risk, although the doors were then replaced.
“Procedures to keep people safe in the event of a fire were not in place.” from the report
Quality checks did not lead to quick action
needs fixingAudits had identified problems with fire safety, recruitment records and the building, but the provider did not act promptly. This was the reason Well-led was rated Requires Improvement.
“Timely action had not been taken by the provider in response to the findings of audits and risk assessments.” from the report
Worn areas of the building
needs fixingSeveral areas needed renewal, including chipped paint and ripped wallpaper. A refurbishment programme had started after the inspection.
“The home needed refurbishment and renewal as several areas were worn with chipped paint and ripped wallpaper and some areas did not reflect a homely environment.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment record
minorOne staff file did not contain a full employment history. The manager obtained this after the inspection and agreed that the application form should be changed.
“a full employment history was not available for one staff member.” from the report
- 01Have both fire doors been replaced, and how do you now make sure fire safety actions are completed on time?
- 02What refurbishment work has been completed since the inspection, and what remains outstanding?
- 03How do you check that staff recruitment files contain full employment histories before staff start?
- 04How do you track actions from audits and make sure they are completed by agreed dates?
- 05How will you support my relative's choices, independence, activities and contact with family?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection that assessed all five CQC questions and included the premises as well as the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found caring, personalised support and improvements in medicines and fire safety, but noted recent medicine errors and staff pressure.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 21 September 2017. Inspectors reviewed records, spoke with people living at the home, staff, managers and visiting health professionals, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, suitable food, trained staff, personalised care and good systems for involving people in decisions.
The previous inspection had rated Safe as Requires improvement because fire safety checks and medicine arrangements were not consistently safe. Inspectors found these areas had improved, although 16 medicine errors had occurred in the previous 12 months and one risk assessment had not been updated promptly.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a relaxed atmosphere. Staff understood people's communication styles, respected privacy and supported independence.
“There was a friendly and relaxed atmosphere at the home and we saw people were comfortable approaching and engaging with staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's likes, dislikes, routines and communication needs. People helped plan their care and were offered daily choices.
“Care records were updated monthly or sooner if a person's needs changed which gave staff clear up to date guidance about the support people required.” from the report
Food and health support
Inspectors found plenty of different foods and staff understood people's dietary needs. The home worked with health professionals when people's needs changed.
“During our visit we found ample quantities of different foods including fresh fruit were available.” from the report
Improved safety checks
Fire safety checks had become more frequent, evacuation information had been updated and medicine checking had improved since the previous inspection.
“During this visit we found further improvements had been made.” from the report
Open management
People could raise concerns through weekly meetings, complaints or questionnaires. Staff had access to managers and an out-of-hours on-call system.
“There were effective systems to monitor and review the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
Medicine errors
seriousThe report says 16 medicine errors had occurred in the previous 12 months. Extra training, checks and a second staff check had been introduced to reduce the risk of further errors.
“The providers PIR informed us that there had been 16 medication errors in the previous 12 months” from the report
Pressure on staff
needs fixingRecent incidents involving challenging behaviour had left some staff feeling worried and less confident. The provider increased supervision, held debriefs and ran behavioural workshops.
“One incident had resulted in a staff member being injured.” from the report
Staff vacancies and turnover
needs fixingThere were three staff vacancies at the inspection, and 11 of 19 staff had left during the previous 12 months. Shortfalls were covered by agency or bank staff while recruitment continued.
“At the time of our visit there were three staff vacancies.” from the report
- 01What medicine errors have happened since the inspection, and how do you check that medicines are given correctly now?
- 02Are all staff vacancies filled, and how often do you use agency or bank staff?
- 03How are staff supported after incidents involving challenging behaviour, and what extra training is available?
- 04How do you make sure risk assessments are updated immediately after an incident or change in need?
- 05How are people and their families involved in care planning, weekly meetings and decisions about activities and food?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 November 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 Vermont House
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 October 2014.
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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.