CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Villa Maria
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were being followed. This included PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
Inspectors visited the home on 27 January 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic, focused on infection prevention and control.
They found that staff had infection control and PPE training. People and staff were regularly tested for COVID-19, and the home had extra cleaning, social distancing measures and safe arrangements for visitors and admissions.
The home was inspected but not rated. The inspection only assessed infection prevention and control, rather than giving an overall quality rating.
Staff infection control training
Staff had training in infection control and PPE use. They changed into their uniforms when arriving, with washing at the home available.
“Staff had received training in infection control and how to use personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively.” from the report
Regular COVID-19 testing
People and staff had regular COVID-19 tests. Anyone entering the home, including staff, had a lateral flow test for each shift.
“Lateral flow tests (which give a result in 30 minutes) were used for anyone who entered the service including staff for each shift they worked.” from the report
Cleaning and distancing
The home had increased cleaning, including disinfecting frequently used areas. Furniture had been rearranged to support social distancing.
“The service was clean and additional cleaning had been added to the cleaning schedule including disinfecting door handles and all areas after use by people or staff.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 27 January 2021?
- 02What testing arrangements are currently in place for staff, residents and visitors?
- 03How do you manage visits, admissions and possible infection outbreaks now?
- 04What were the home's ratings for caring, effective care, responsiveness and leadership at its previous full inspection?
- 05How often are high-touch areas such as door handles cleaned, and how is this checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 2021 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some fire safety and worn carpet improvements still planned.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 13 and 14 June 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, checked five care records and reviewed staffing, training and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable care plans, respectful care and effective systems for handling concerns and checking quality.
The previous inspection in February 2017 found four breaches and an overall rating of Requires Improvement. At this inspection, inspectors found that the home had made enough progress to meet all those breaches.
A small number of fire safety improvements were due to be completed by the end of July 2018. Some hallway carpets were worn and plans were in place to replace them.
Safe staffing
The home had worked out how many care staff were needed and had deployed enough staff during the two weeks before the inspection and on both inspection days.
“This was because people promptly received all of the care they needed and wanted to receive.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely, records were up to date and staff administering medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“We saw them correctly following the registered persons' written guidance to make sure that people were given the right medicines at the right times.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offering emotional support and respecting people's privacy, dignity and personal space.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
People's care plans recorded their preferences and needs, and staff supported hobbies, interests and religious observance.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs including their right to have information presented to them in an accessible manner.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had introduced stronger quality checks and more opportunities for people and relatives to suggest improvements.
“The improvements made by the registered persons in monitoring and resolving problems in the running of the service had resulted in the breach of regulations being met.” from the report
Fire safety work pending
needs fixingThe fire service had identified a small number of improvements needed to maintain protection. The home said these would be completed by the end of July 2018.
“The registered manager told us and records confirmed that plans had been made for the required improvements to be completed by the end of July 2018.” from the report
Worn hallway carpets
minorSome hallway carpets looked worn and unattractive. The report says there were plans to replace them.
“Although some of the carpets in the hallways were worn and looked unsightly, records showed that there were plans to replace them in the near future.” from the report
- 01Have all the fire safety improvements identified by Kent Fire and Rescue Service been completed?
- 02Have the worn hallway carpets been replaced, and what is the current timetable if not?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels continue to match the number and needs of people living here?
- 04How are people's consent and mental capacity reviewed when decisions about care are made?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback, and what changes have been made as a result?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating; the report also checked whether concerns and breaches identified at the February 2017 inspection had been put right. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 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 Villa Maria
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 January 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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 £1,260 a week. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.