CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Victoria Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and monitored, staffing was sufficient, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were safely managed. They also noted recent medication errors and some PRN medicine protocols that were not detailed enough, with action taken during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and knowledge needed to support people. People were helped with health appointments, nutrition and everyday choices, although one care plan had not reflected the person’s latest health assessment until the inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, supportive and respectful. Inspectors found that privacy, dignity, equality and personal preferences were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people’s individual needs and preferences. People were involved in reviews, supported with activities and helped to build independence, although records did not clearly evidence some reviews.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives, staff and professionals described approachable and effective leadership. The home used regular audits, meetings, surveys and action plans to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, October 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some care records did not clearly show that reviews had taken place.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 15 August 2018. Inspectors observed care, meals, activities and medicines. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and outside professionals. They also checked care records, staff files, training records and quality checks.
The home supported seven adults under 65 with mental health needs, with space for up to nine people. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable recruitment checks and staff who understood safeguarding and decision-making rights.
People and relatives were very positive about the care. Inspectors found support was kind, personalised and flexible. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
There were some recording weaknesses. Updates to support plans and risk assessments were not supported by enough evidence, and one health care record had not been updated after a hospital assessment. The manager took action during the inspection to improve these records.
Risk management
Inspectors found that risks relating to people’s health, medicines, finances, smoking, alcohol and behaviour had been considered. Steps had also been taken to reduce known risks, such as falls.
“Risks to people had been individually assessed, monitored and reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed friendly relationships and found that people’s privacy, dignity, equality and choices were respected.
“People found their support workers to be kind and supportive and told us they were happy with the support they received.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, use the community and work towards greater independence. The home also supported people with education, volunteering and plans to move on.
“The culture of the service is to support people to move on and regain independence.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager and staff were described as approachable and supportive. Regular audits, meetings, surveys and action plans were used to oversee the service.
“Quality assurance procedures were used to monitor and improve the service for people and included them in developing their care and support.” from the report
Care records did not clearly show reviews
needs fixingSupport plans and risk assessments had been updated, but there was not enough evidence to show what had been reviewed or why. The manager introduced an evaluation sheet to improve this.
“We found that although people's support plans and risk assessments were updated there was no evidence to support this and it was difficult to demonstrate review.” from the report
Some medicine protocols lacked detail
needs fixingPRN medicine instructions were not always complete. One pain relief protocol did not say whether the person could tell staff when they were in pain. The protocols were updated before inspectors returned on the second day.
“PRN protocols were in place but these were not consistently detailed.” from the report
One health care plan was out of date
needs fixingOne person’s plan referred to a choking risk and a possible specialist referral, but inspectors could not find the referral and the plan had not been updated after a later hospital assessment. The plan was amended during the inspection.
“However, we unable to locate such referral and their care plan had not been updated.” from the report
- 01How do you now show in the records that each person’s support plan and risk assessments have been reviewed?
- 02How are medication errors recorded, investigated and followed up, and when was staff medicine training last checked?
- 03How do you make sure PRN medicine instructions explain when a person can ask for the medicine and what staff should try first?
- 04How are changes after hospital appointments or assessments added promptly to care plans?
- 05What activities and independence goals would be available for my relative, and how would they be recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, including observations, discussions with people, relatives, staff and professionals, and checks of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 2018 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 Lodge
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 October 2016.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 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.