CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Vine House Older Persons Residence
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control and safe arrangements for visiting during the pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 3 February 2021. It checked how the home was preventing and controlling infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, supporting testing, following social distancing and shielding rules, and keeping its infection control policy up to date.
The home had built a heated garden visiting cabin with a screen, handwashing facilities and an intercom. Visitors had protective equipment and the cabin was cleaned and ventilated after each visit.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection looked at infection control only and did not give a new overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
The purpose-built garden cabin allowed relatives and some healthcare professionals to visit while reducing the need to enter the home.
“To promote safe visiting for people and their relatives, the provider had built a bespoke cabin in the garden.” from the report
Infection control training
Staff had extra infection control training and had to show they could put on and remove protective equipment correctly.
“All staff had received additional training in infection prevention and control and had been required to complete a competency check for the donning and doffing of PPE.” from the report
Health monitoring
Staff checked residents' temperatures twice a day and had been trained to use an oximeter to support discussions with healthcare professionals.
“These checks included twice daily temperature checks.” from the report
Emotional support
Relatives said staff recognised the emotional effects of the pandemic and lockdowns, as well as keeping residents physically safe.
“They didn't just keep them safe, they tried to nurture them and they were looking after them emotionally.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection control arrangements are currently in place for visitors?
- 02How are residents checked for signs of infection, and how are families told about any concerns?
- 03How often do staff receive infection control and protective equipment training?
- 04How are visits arranged when a healthcare professional needs to see a resident?
- 05What are the current arrangements for cleaning and ventilating visiting areas after each visit?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the other areas were not assessed or newly rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 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, September 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home needed to improve how it recorded decisions for people who may lack capacity.
Inspectors visited without warning on 27 July 2018. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed a mealtime and checked care records, staff files, medicines, safety records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for safety, caring, responsiveness and leadership. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly and had their privacy and independence respected. Inspectors also found safe medicines systems, enough staff and personalised activities and care.
The Effective rating was Requires Improvement. Records did not always show that decisions for people who might lack the mental capacity to decide for themselves had been assessed properly. The overall rating was still Good because inspectors considered the impact of this shortfall to be low and found strengths in other areas.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were ordered, stored and given safely. Staff training and checks of their competence were in place.
“Medicines were ordered, received, stored and administered safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and compassion. Staff knew people's names, preferences and needs, and supported their independence.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion with their independence promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's histories, communication needs and preferences. The home offered activities linked to people's interests and wishes.
“People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved its records and introduced regular checks to identify and correct problems. Staff and families said the service had improved since the previous inspection.
“At this inspection, we found that people's care plans were complete and there were a number of quality assurance systems in place to effectively audit the service provided.” from the report
Capacity decisions were not recorded clearly
needs fixingThe paperwork did not always show a clear, decision-specific assessment of whether a person could decide for themselves. It also did not show enough involvement of relatives or consideration of the least restrictive option.
“The questions asked in the assessments of a person's capacity were not specific and did not evidence the involvement of either the person or others important to them, such as relatives.” from the report
Weekend staffing varied
minorSome people said staffing levels at weekends varied. The manager said sickness had affected weekends but that cover was always provided, and inspectors saw rotas showing planned cover.
“Some people told us that the staff numbers at weekends were variable.” from the report
Supervision was not regular
minorStaff said they did not receive regular supervision, although they could speak to the management team when needed.
“Although staff did not have regular supervision, they told us they could speak to the management team at any time.” from the report
- 01How do you assess whether a person can make each particular decision, rather than making a general assessment?
- 02How do you involve the person, their relatives and others important to them in best-interest decisions?
- 03How do you record that you have considered the least restrictive option?
- 04How do you make sure staffing cover is reliable at weekends when there is sickness?
- 05How often do staff receive supervision and how is their development monitored?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions through discussions, observation and checks of care, staff and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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 Vine House Older Persons Residence
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Vine House Older Persons Residence →
- September 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Vine House Older Persons Residence →
- August 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 July 2014.
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.