CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Victoria House (Wallasey)
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, January 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection control and visiting arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 19 January 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
The home had regular COVID-19 testing for people living there, staff, essential carers and visitors. Staff used personal protective equipment, and there was enough available.
Inspectors were assured about testing, PPE, hygiene, social distancing, safe admissions, outbreak management and visits. The home also used a separate visiting pod outside the main building.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not give an overall rating or a rated judgement on the quality of care.
Regular testing
The home had a programme of COVID-19 testing for people living there, staff, essential carers and visitors. Screening included temperature checks and a negative lateral flow test.
“There was a programme of regular COVID-19 testing for both people living in the home, staff, essential carers and visitors to the home.” from the report
PPE and infection control
Staff used personal protective equipment and followed infection control guidance. Inspectors said there was ample PPE available.
“Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) and followed guidance and practices. There was ample PPE available to staff.” from the report
Visiting arrangements
The home had a separate visiting pod outside the main building. Inspectors were assured that visits were being facilitated in line with current guidance.
“There was separate visiting pod that could be accessed outside the main building reducing the risk of infection visitors and people living at the home.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently testing people living in the home, staff, essential carers and visitors?
- 02What PPE is available now, and how do you check that staff use it safely?
- 03Are visits still being offered in a separate visiting area or pod when needed?
- 04How would you manage an infection outbreak in the home?
- 05Have COVID-19-related staffing pressures affected care or staffing levels recently?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 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.
What inspectors found, October 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; the home left Special Measures, but risk oversight was still not reliable.
Inspectors carried out a focused inspection on 3 September 2020. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and a visiting professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
There had been clear improvements since the previous inspection. Medicines storage, infection control, fire safety, bathing facilities and garden security had improved. Staff recruitment, staffing levels, training, safeguarding, food and healthcare support were also found to be satisfactory.
However, management checks did not always identify important risks. These included a person's fluid intake, missing detail in care plans for people with epilepsy, and patterns in the use of medicines given when needed. The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement, and the home was no longer in Special Measures, but Regulation 17 remained breached.
Improved infection control
The home had added sluice rooms, followed COVID-19 guidance and had enough protective equipment. Inspectors saw staff using the appropriate equipment.
“The systems introduced by the provider to manage infection control risks associated with Covid-19 followed national and local guidance” from the report
Safer staffing
Recruitment checks were completed and staffing levels were considered suitable for people's needs. Staff were visible and available during the inspection.
“We observed staff were always visible and available to support people in a timely manner.” from the report
Better consent arrangements
Best-interest decisions and lasting power of attorney arrangements were recorded more clearly. Reviews of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were also being managed.
“Best interest decisions had been made when people did not have the capacity to consent.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People's nutrition and hydration needs were assessed. Staff supported people to eat and drink, and referrals to health professionals were made when needed.
“People's nutritional and hydration needs had been assessed and were being met.” from the report
Risk checks were not reliable enough
seriousAudits and care records did not always identify or evaluate important risks. This included fluid intake, epilepsy care plans and repeated use of medicines given when needed. No harm was found, but people were placed at risk.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate effective governance arrangements” from the report
Guidance for medicines given when needed
needs fixingRecords did not give staff enough detail about when to ask a GP for advice after regular use of these medicines. CQC made a recommendation for the practice to be updated.
“These lacked sufficient detail to inform staff when to seek GP advice following periods of regular administration.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure fluid intake targets are monitored and reviewed consistently?
- 02How have care plans for people with epilepsy been improved, and who checks that the guidance is complete?
- 03What new checks identify repeated use of medicines given when needed, and when is GP advice requested?
- 04What progress has been made against the action plan for the Regulation 17 breach?
- 05How are potential fire risks, including storage and room temperatures, now checked and recorded?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 October 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 House (Wallasey)
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2020Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 April 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
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Wirral
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during 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.