CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Veryan Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had individual risk assessments and positive behaviour support plans. Staffing, recruitment, fire safety, infection control and medicines were generally managed safely, but individual PRN medicine protocols were missing.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people's health, nutrition and communication needs were assessed. Records did not fully document some decision-specific capacity assessments and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, respectful and caring. People were supported to make choices, maintain privacy and dignity, and develop independence and daily living skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reflected people's preferences, communication needs, interests and health needs. People were supported to take part in activities and keep in touch with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had open leadership and regular checks on medicines, care records, health and safety, accidents and safeguarding. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the management.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Veryan Close was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with improvements needed in some records and PRN medicine guidance.
This was the first inspection since the home registered. Inspectors visited on 20 November 2019, met both people living there, relatives, staff and the manager, and reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicine storage and administration.
People were described as happy and relaxed with staff. Care focused on choice, independence, communication and activities suited to each person. Relatives gave very positive feedback.
Inspectors made two recommendations. Records did not always clearly show how decisions were assessed under the Mental Capacity Act, and there were no individual protocols explaining when PRN, or 'when required', medicines should be given.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw people looking happy and relaxed with staff. Staff respected people's choices, privacy and dignity.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and we saw people were happy and relaxed in staffs' company.” from the report
Building independence
People were encouraged to learn daily living skills, take part in household tasks and make choices about their day.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, interests, communication needs and health information. Staff supported activities that mattered to each person.
“Care plans were written in a person-centred way and provided staff with detailed information on people's likes, dislikes, personal preferences, care needs and medical history.” from the report
Good communication support
Staff used visual aids, planners, pictures and social stories to help people understand information and express choices.
“The way in which people communicated was central to how care and support was planned.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager was described as open and approachable. Regular audits and checks were used to monitor and improve the service.
“There was strong leadership and management at the service and the registered manager and staff understood their roles, responsibilities and contributions to the service.” from the report
PRN medicine guidance
needs fixingThere were no individual instructions explaining when some people might need 'when required' medicines. This could lead to staff making different decisions about giving them.
“There were no individual protocols about when people might need their 'when required' (PRN) medicines.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly document decision-specific capacity assessments and best-interest decisions when people needed help making decisions.
“Where people needed support with decisions this was not fully recorded in their care records with clear, decision specific assessment and best interests process that took place, documented.” from the report
- 01Have individual PRN medicine protocols now been written for each person who may need them?
- 02How are decision-specific capacity assessments and best-interest decisions recorded now?
- 03How will you make sure any required one-to-one staffing support is provided?
- 04How do you review whether activities, visual aids and communication plans are still meeting the person's needs?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviews of care, choices and progress towards independence?
This was the first comprehensive inspection and covered all five CQC areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 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.
Every inspection of Veryan Close
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 November 2018.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.