CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Victoria House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to respond to abuse concerns. Staffing, medicines, infection control, recruitment and risk management were found to be suitable, although some blood-thinning medicine risk assessments were completed only during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on their needs and choices, with good support for nutrition, health care and consent. Inspectors noted that new staff were not undertaking the Care Certificate and that some Mental Capacity Act records needed improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people with kindness, patience, dignity and respect. People were supported to remain independent, express their views and maintain relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs, wishes and preferences, and were being reviewed to make them more person-centred. The home offered activities, supported communication needs, enabled visiting and had a complaints process.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and professionals spoke positively about the management. There was a clear management structure, regular audits and an open approach to concerns and suggestions.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with some records and new-staff training needing improvement.
The inspection took place on 9 and 16 December 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked medicines, recruitment, infection control, care plans, risk assessments and management records.
People said they felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection control and good support with food, health care, activities and personal choices.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The other four ratings remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as caring. Inspectors saw staff supporting people calmly and patiently, while respecting their dignity, privacy and independence.
“Staff supported people in a friendly, calm and patient way.” from the report
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough skilled staff to meet people's needs. Staff were available and had time to support people without appearing rushed.
“There were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff deployed to keep people safe.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Staff were trained and assessed as competent, and audits were used to check records and stock.
“People confirmed they received their medicines as prescribed and they could request 'as required' (PRN) medicines when needed.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about daily life and care. Staff supported people to do as much as possible for themselves and respected their personal preferences.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible. Their rights to dignity and privacy were maintained.” from the report
Good links with professionals
Staff worked with health and social care professionals to respond to changes in people's health and provide coordinated care.
“Staff worked together to ensure people received consistent, timely, coordinated, person-centred care and support.” from the report
Risk assessments completed late
needs fixingRisk assessments for people taking blood-thinning medicines had not been completed before the inspection. They were completed during the inspection and showed the risks had then been fully assessed.
“They had not completed risk assessments for people receiving blood thinning medicines, however these were completed during the inspection.” from the report
Induction for new care staff
needs fixingNew staff were not completing the Care Certificate. The home said it would explore an introductory care course, but the alternative diploma could take up to a year.
“Staff who were new to care were not undertaking the Care Certificate.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
needs fixingInspectors found that some records did not clearly show how the Mental Capacity Act had been followed. The manager said similar assessments were being completed for other people who might need them.
“The manager recognised records needed to be improved to evidence the MCA was followed” from the report
Care plans being updated
minorExisting care plans described people's needs but were not always as person-centred as they could be. The manager was reviewing and updating them during the inspection.
“Although existing care plans detailed people's needs, the manager had identified areas they could make them more person centred.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans now been updated to give staff detailed, person-centred information about each resident?
- 02How are risk assessments kept up to date for residents taking blood-thinning medicines?
- 03What introductory training do new care staff complete before they work independently?
- 04How do you record and review decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act?
- 05How will you check that improvements to care plans and records are being maintained?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, and it looked at both the home and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 2022 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 House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2019.
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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.