The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Victoria House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Victoria House, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire, FY6 7JA (01253) 892400

Provided and run by:
Victoria House Care Home Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

12 August 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on the 12 August 2015 and the first day was unannounced. This means we did not give the provider prior knowledge of our inspection.

We last inspected Victoria House on the 30 June 2014 and identified no breaches in the regulations we looked at.

Victoria House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 12 older people. The home is situated in a residential area of Poulton-le-Fylde and is close to shops and local amenities.

Victoria House is well served by public transport, being on a bus route and close to the railway station. There are two lounges and a dining area situated on the ground floor, with individual bedrooms on the ground and first floors. A stair lift is in place for ease of access to the upper floor.

The home has a manager who is registered with the Care Quality Commission. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were systems in place to ensure people who used the service were protected from the risk of harm and abuse and the staff we spoke with were knowledgeable of the action to take if they had concerns in this area.

Staff were knowledgeable of peoples’ assessed needs and delivered care in accordance with these.

There were arrangements in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Processes were in place to ensure that people’s freedom was not inappropriately restricted and staff were knowledgeable of these.

During the inspection we saw independence was promoted wherever possible. We saw people were supported to mobilise and engage in an organised activity with patience and understanding. People were referred to other health professionals for further advice and support when appropriate

People told us they liked the food provided at Victoria House and we saw people were supported to eat and drink adequately to meet their needs and preferences.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and we saw appropriate recruitment checks were carried out to ensure suitable people were employed to work at the service. Staff were supported by the registered manager and the owner. Staff received regular supervision to ensure training needs were identified. There was a programme of training in place.

There was a complaints policy in place, which was understood by staff and was available in the bedrooms of people that lived at the home. The deputy head of care and the registered manager monitored the quality of service by carrying out checks on the environment, medicines and records. People were encouraged to give feedback to staff, which was acted upon.

30 June 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection we looked at whether people's privacy and dignity was respected, the way people were cared for and supported, the safety and suitability of the premises, how staff were being supported and the quality monitoring systems in place. We spoke individually with a three people living at the home, two relatives, the registered manager and the homeowner. Care practices were also observed during the course of the inspection.

This helped to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect by the staff team. This was confirmed by every person we spoke with. People told us they felt safe living at the home. One person when asked if she felt safe said, 'Oh yes, very definitely. I have no worries at all. If I ask for anything it is always done in a nice, comfortable way. They are all wonderful'.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted of late. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean, and hygienic. Equipment had been maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were pleased with the level of care that was being delivered to them and that their assessed needs were being met. Health and care needs had been assessed and people had been involved, as far as they wished, in writing their plans of care. This was confirmed by the people we spoke with, all of which had a good understanding of the content of their care plan. The care plans we looked at had been signed by the person to confirm their understanding and agreement to the content. People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support provided in accordance with people's wishes.

The visitors we spoke with confirmed that that were able to see people in private and at a time of their choice. The relatives we spoke with also said that they had good communication with the staff team and were always informed of any changes or concerns. A relative told us, 'I am more than happy with the level of care. Personal care they do very well'.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw that members of staff showed humour, patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. A relative commented, 'Everybody is more than good, I am not just saying that I really mean it'. A person living at the home said, 'They (the staff) are helpful in every way, I cannot say that anything is not good'. A second person told us, 'They (the staff) have the patience of a saint with us all. If you want to be silly you can be and they will be silly back. It's alright here, it's grand. They all do everything really well'.

We saw that people using the service, their relatives and other interested people had previously been given opportunity to complete a satisfaction survey. However these had not been distributed for some time. The homeowner recognised the value of surveys and explained that new satisfaction surveys were about to being developed. We observed that people living at the home and relatives were very comfortable in speaking directly with the registered manager and the homeowner. People spoken with and the relatives spoken also told us this.

Is the service responsive?

The people we spoke with said they were satisfied with the arrangements in place to support social activities and social interactions. We were told that although some people were less interested in structured social activities, they did appreciate staff spending one to one time with them for a chat. One relative mentioned that her mother had enjoyed card making and baking, although she had not necessarily made this known to the staff team. The homeowner said that if possible, these activities would be provided within a risk assessment framework. This showed that the preferred social activities that people enjoyed were taken into account and provided where ever possible.

People said that they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy about anything; however they also said that they had nothing to complaint about. We saw that there was an 'open door' policy with people expressing their views, or queries as they arose. This meant that any concern or query could be dealt with immediately.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with a range of health professionals to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way. Records were kept of all health professionals visits in respect of each person, which included the reason for the visit and the outcome.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.