CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Victoria Gardens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing visitors and admissions safely, accessing testing, and maintaining infection-control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control practice, but this visit did not provide an overall quality rating.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 26 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found examples of good practice. Visitors were screened for COVID-19 symptoms and required to take a lateral flow test. Staff had reminders about using personal protective equipment, cleaning schedules had increased, and checks were carried out.
The home was rated inspected but not rated for safety. The report does not give an overall rating or ratings for the other areas of care. This was not a full inspection of the home.
Visitor safety
Visitors were screened for COVID-19 symptoms and had to complete a lateral flow test before visiting.
“When visitors arrived at the home, they were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 and were required to complete a lateral flow test.” from the report
Keeping people connected
The home supported contact with important people in different ways, including headphones for a person with hearing impairment during video calls.
“One person had a hearing impairment and had been provided with headphones which meant they were able to communicate effectively with their family members during zoom calls.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
Staff had wellbeing supervision, access to confidential advice and support, and changes to working hours where needed.
“Wellbeing supervision sessions had been held with staff, and an external confidential advice and support helpline was available to staff to seek advice and support.” from the report
Infection-control routines
Staff had reminders about putting on and removing PPE correctly. Cleaning schedules had also increased and were checked by managers.
“Cleaning schedules had been increased. The management team completed checks to ensure cleaning schedules were followed and staff complied with the provider's infection control policy.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visitors currently screened for symptoms and tested before visiting?
- 02How do staff receive reminders and checks about putting on and taking off PPE?
- 03How often are cleaning schedules checked, and what happens if a check finds a problem?
- 04What support is currently available to staff for their wellbeing?
- 05When was the home's last full inspection covering the other areas of care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, recorded under Safe; it did not provide an overall rating or assess the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines and care records were not always safe or clear.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment files, complaints and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and described kind care. Staffing levels, recruitment checks, training, food and infection control were viewed positively. People were supported to make choices, keep their dignity and maintain relationships.
The main problems were medicines management and gaps in care records. One person received the wrong medicine dose for several days after a dosage change. Records did not always explain clearly how risks such as falls and skin damage should be managed.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were each rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, which means some safety arrangements were not reliable enough and there was an increased risk that people could be harmed.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found good relationships between people and staff. People's dignity, privacy and independence were respected.
“Staff provided kind, compassionate care. People's dignity was maintained, and personal care was carried out in private and in a timely way.” from the report
Staffing and training
There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks, ongoing training and checks of staff skills were in place.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Food and health support
People enjoyed the food and could choose meals and drinks. The home monitored people at risk of poor nutrition or dehydration and made health referrals when needed.
“People enjoyed the food provided and staff closely monitored the food and fluid intake of those people at risk of poor nutrition and hydration.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to stay in contact with family and friends and to take part in activities and community visits.
“Community links has been established. For example, one person was supported to visit the local shops every week and children from a local nursery visited the home each week.” from the report
Medicine errors
seriousA medicine dosage was changed, but records showed the wrong dose was given for several days. Other medicine records did not always match, so inspectors could not be sure medicines were managed as prescribed.
“One person had been prescribed an increased dosage of a medicine to help stabilise a health condition which placed them at risk of falls.” from the report
Incomplete risk records
needs fixingSome records did not clearly explain how risks such as falls, skin problems and a sore heel should be managed. This could make it harder for staff, particularly temporary staff, to provide safe care.
“Care records were not always clear about risk management such as risks associated with falls and people's skin, and summary information to assist temporary workers was limited.” from the report
No registered manager
minorThere was a manager, but they were not registered with the CQC during the inspection. The report says an application had been submitted.
“At the time of our visit there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine checks since the inspection, and how do you make sure dosage changes are acted on immediately?
- 02How are medicine records checked to make sure medicines received, given and remaining all match?
- 03How are care records kept up to date for falls, skin damage and other changing risks?
- 04How do temporary staff find out about each person's current care needs and risks?
- 05Has the manager's application to register with the CQC been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care; it was prompted in part by an investigation of a serious fall, but that investigation's details were not part of the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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 Victoria Gardens
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Coventry
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. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.