CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Victoria Park (Coventry)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood care risks, safeguarding and infection control, and medicines were generally managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not reliably identify environmental hazards, medicine-recording problems or learning from accidents and incidents. The provider acted after the inspection to address the issues found.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and rated the home Requires Improvement for being well-led.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 13 June 2023. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood risks, safeguarding, infection control and medicines, although some recruitment records were unclear and staff said they sometimes felt rushed.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Management checks had missed exposed hot pipes, poor storage, holes in doors and some medicine-recording problems. The provider took action after the inspection to address the issues found.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published on 21 February 2019. However, the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe living at the home and with the staff supporting them. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living at the home and with the staff that supported them.” from the report
Care risks were understood
Risks such as falls and poor nutrition were recorded in care plans. Staff knew how to reduce these risks, and care plans were regularly reviewed.
“Staff knew about risks associated with people's care and how to minimise these risks.” from the report
Medicines were usually managed safely
Trained staff used an electronic medicines system. It helped the manager identify medicines that had not been given as prescribed.
“Medicines were managed through an electronic system which enabled the registered manager to identify any medicines not given as prescribed.” from the report
Person-centred care
Staff knew people well and used care plans to support their choices and wishes. People and relatives said they were involved in decisions about care.
“People received person-centred care. Staff used care plan records to ensure people's choices and wishes were met.” from the report
Management checks missed hazards
seriousDaily building checks did not identify exposed hot pipes, items stored on a dirty floor or holes in doors that could affect fire safety. These issues were addressed after the inspection.
“These checks had not identified exposed hot pipes in a bathroom, items stored on a dirty floor in a linen room, and holes in doors that could compromise fire safety.” from the report
Some medicine records were not reliable
seriousInspectors found that a cream had not been applied as prescribed, a pain relief gel was not used according to instructions, and records for one medicine were incomplete.
“Medicine records showed a cream had not been applied during the morning as prescribed and a pain relief gel was not being used in accordance with prescribing instructions.” from the report
Staff felt under pressure
needs fixingSome staff said there were not enough of them and that they did not always have enough time to spend with people. The provider said an extra morning-shift staff member would be made available imminently.
“No, we never have enough time to spend with people, we are always rushing to the next.” from the report
Learning from incidents was not always clear
needs fixingAccidents and incidents were monitored, but records did not always show that trends and causes had been identified to help prevent repeat incidents.
“However, it was not always clear from records that trends and causes had been identified to help prevent them from happening again.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to make the exposed hot pipes, dirty-floor storage and holes in doors safe, and how was this checked?
- 02What changes were made to ensure creams, gels and other medicines are given exactly as prescribed and recorded correctly?
- 03How many staff are planned for each shift, especially in the morning, and how do you check that staffing is enough?
- 04How do you now identify trends and causes in accidents and incidents and use them to prevent further problems?
- 05How can residents and relatives give feedback, and how will you show that their concerns have been acted on?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give current ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2023 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 2019
Victoria Park (Coventry) was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with mixed views about the food.
This was an unannounced, planned comprehensive inspection on 30 January 2019. The inspection involved observations, conversations with people and relatives, discussions with staff and managers, and checks of care records, medicines, complaints, quality systems and staff files.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, clear risk plans, safe medicines management, good infection control and support with healthcare.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well, supported personal choices and independence, and provided activities and community links. Complaints were handled in line with the provider's procedure.
The rating had improved from Requires improvement overall at the inspection in May 2017. The report says improvements had been made in staffing, risk management, training, food and fluid monitoring, privacy, care records and quality monitoring.
Safe staffing and risk management
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and clear instructions for managing known risks. Staff followed those instructions during the inspection.
“At this inspection staff were available when people needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. People and relatives were complimentary about the care.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences and interests. Staff supported people to take part in activities that mattered to them, including swimming.
“Care plans informed staff how they should support people in a way that met their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Improved leadership and checks
The home's quality monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. Feedback was used to make changes, and learning from incidents was shared.
“During this visit systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service provided had improved.” from the report
Mixed views about food
minorPeople's nutritional and hydration needs were being met, but some people were unhappy with the quality or contents of meals and snacks. Ask how the home responds to individual food preferences and complaints.
“You get a sandwich but there's nothing in it. Just two small bits of bread.” from the report
- 01How do you check that meals and snacks meet each resident's preferences, and how have you responded to the mixed feedback about food?
- 02What are the current staffing levels on each shift, and are they still enough to keep people safe and provide care when needed?
- 03How are each person's risk management plans and care plans reviewed when their needs or abilities change?
- 04What activities are currently available, and how do you support residents to continue interests outside the home?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the care home and all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2019 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 Park (Coventry)
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 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.