CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Victoria Royal Beach
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were generally handled safely, staffing levels met people's needs and the home was clean. Some people said staff were busy and they sometimes had to wait for help.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and regular supervision. People received support with food, drinks and healthcare, and the home followed the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People and relatives were involved in care planning and people were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed monthly. Activities were based on people's interests, but one person said they felt cut off from the wider home because their health meant they could not safely leave their room.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was described as approachable. Regular meetings, audits and work with health and social care professionals were used to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Victoria Royal Beach was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some concerns about busy periods and medicine reviews.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 29 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the management team. They observed care and checked care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from avoidable harm, supported by trained staff, treated with dignity and given personalised care.
There were some smaller issues. Some people felt staff were busy and had to wait at times. Several medicines were marked as not required and needed review by GPs. Inspectors also suggested putting menus on dining tables to help people remember their choices.
The previous inspection, published in January 2017, also rated the home Good. The home was not in special measures, and the report did not record any breaches or enforcement action.
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, routines, health needs and the help they wanted. Staff used this information to support people in individual ways.
“Care plans were reviewed monthly and included detailed information about people's care and support needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being patient and caring. People were involved in decisions and their privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“We observed that staff were patient and kind in their interactions with people and treated them with respect.” from the report
Good risk management
Risks such as falls, choking, poor nutrition and skin problems were assessed. Staff had clear guidance and used suitable equipment.
“People's risks were identified, assessed and managed safely.” from the report
Training and support
Staff completed training relevant to their roles and to people's needs. They also received regular supervision and annual appraisals.
“Staff had regular supervision meetings which occurred four times a year and they also had an annual appraisal of their performance.” from the report
Active oversight
The home used audits to check medicines, care plans, health and safety, the building and infection control. Inspectors found these audits helped drive improvement.
“A robust system of audits had been implemented.” from the report
Staff could be busy
needs fixingSome people said they had to wait when staff were busy, particularly when staff were away and agency staff were used. The provider had added an extra twilight shift from 4pm to 8pm.
“There aren't enough staff. All the essentials get done, but they are so distracted by all they have to do.” from the report
Some medicines needed review
needs fixingMedicine records were completed accurately, but several entries showed that medicines such as laxatives and pain relief were not required. The home said it would ask GPs to review these prescriptions.
“However, we noticed that several entries were completed as 'not required' for medicines such as Macrogel compound and paracetamol.” from the report
Menus were not on dining tables
minorSome people had forgotten what they had chosen for lunch. A menu was displayed in the hall, but inspectors suggested putting menus on dining tables as well.
“Some people had forgotten what they had chosen for lunch and there were no menus on the dining tables to remind people of the food choices.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people do not wait too long for help during busy periods, such as getting ready for bed?
- 02Which medicines have been reviewed with GPs after the inspection, particularly laxatives and pain relief?
- 03How are food choices shown to people who may forget what they selected for lunch?
- 04How do you prevent clothes and other belongings from going missing or being damaged in the laundry?
- 05Who manages the home and makes decisions if the registered manager is away for an extended period?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings were Good; the previous inspection rating was also Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 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.
What inspectors found, January 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a small medicines-recording issue corrected during the visit.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 16 December 2016. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, rotas, training records, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, risk assessments and recruitment were managed safely. Staff had suitable training and supervision, and people had access to food, drink and healthcare.
People described staff as kind and caring. Care plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's needs and preferences. Activities were available, complaints could be made, and people and relatives were involved in reviews and giving feedback.
The previous inspection in October 2015 found two breaches and rated the home Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that the provider had taken appropriate action and that both regulations were now met, so the overall rating improved to Good.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors observed medicines being given safely and found that medicine administration records were completed accurately.
“Medicines were managed safely and staff had completed each Medication Administration Record (MAR) to show that people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff positively. Inspectors observed relaxed and caring relationships, with people treated respectfully.
“We observed that people were at ease in the company of staff and the atmosphere at the home was relaxed, caring and friendly.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, interests and preferences. They were reviewed monthly and used to guide staff.
“Care plans provided comprehensive information about people and advice for staff on how people wished to be cared for.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had acted on the two breaches found in 2015. Inspectors found that the required regulations were now met.
“At this inspection, we found the provider and registered manager had taken appropriate action and these regulations had been met.” from the report
Medicine opening dates
needs fixingSome oral mixtures and eyedrops did not have their opening dates recorded. The deputy manager corrected the bottles during the inspection and agreed to add this check to future audits.
“Some oral mixtures and eyedrops did not have the date of opening recorded on the bottle or outer packaging” from the report
Change of manager
minorThe deputy manager was acting as manager after the previous manager left. A new manager had been appointed but had not yet started at the time of the inspection.
“The deputy manager was also the acting manager, since the previous manager had deregistered with the Commission in October 2016.” from the report
- 01Has the new manager started, and how have they maintained the management arrangements since this inspection?
- 02How do you now check that opening dates are recorded on all oral mixtures and eyedrops?
- 03What activities are currently offered, and how are they matched to each person's interests and choices?
- 04How are relatives involved in monthly care-plan reviews and decisions about care?
- 05How can residents or relatives raise a complaint, and how is it followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; it found improvements since the two breaches and Requires Improvement rating recorded at the October 2015 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2017 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 Royal Beach
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 May 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.