Victoria House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We assessed 5 quality statements in the responsive key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was Outstanding. The rating for this key question has changed to Good. We found that care was often rushed, and task based due to the staffing constraints within the service. People had to wait for care as trained staff were not always available to provide the care they needed. Some staff members knew the people well; however, a high number of agency staff impacted the services ability to provide person centred care. People were not always included when changes were made in the service, and we found that not all information available was in accessible formats for people to fully understand. Feedback surveys had been collected by the service however people told us they did not always feel listened to. We found a breach of regulations in relation to person centred care. People were supported to access health and social care services when needed and staff escalated health concerns to ensure the correct level of care was provided. Referrals had been made but improvements were needed in record keeping ensuring outcomes and follow up information could be reviewed.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People did not always receive person centred care. People felt their care at times was rushed and other people told us they felt angry and frustrated as staff could not always communicate effectively with them.

Some staff told us they were unable to provide person centred care as at times they had to rush or leave people waiting due to the staffing deployment. Staff understood what person-centred care was but told us they were not always able to deliver this. For example, staff had to support two people at the same time which they recognised was not person centred.

People did not always receive person centred care as care was task focused. We observed one person wanting to stay inside and listen to music, however due to staffing they were persuaded to go sit outside, despite saying no to this on multiple occasions. People did not receive individualised care at mealtimes as staff were at times supporting multiple people. We observed staff starting to assist someone with their meals and then leave them to go feed someone else and another staff member assisting two people with their meals simultaneously. Staff supported people with their meals, stood up. We observed one staff member, looking at a tablet whilst this person was trying to communicate with them.

People were supported to access health and social care services they required. Staff supported people for example when there were delays in accessing services to follow these up.

Staff confirmed they escalated any concerns with people’s health and that appointments were organised. Staff told us how they took lead in chasing up referrals and appointments to ensure people received care services.

Health professionals were involved in people’s care to ensure care provision. However, some health professionals told us about their difficulties accessing records to ensure a streamlined process in supporting people.

Records were in place to show referrals had been made to work with the appropriate professionals. However, some improvements were required to the record keeping. For example, we were unable to locate the results of one person's urine sample in their own records. Leaders told us they had processes in place such as, hospital passports, however they confirmed they required updating to contain accurate information. They had allocated a lead member of staff to take forward this work.

People had not been fully involved in changes at the service. There had been changes in relation to the staffing times and people and not been consulted and supported through this change.

The quality lead told us should people require information in accessible formats such as care plans that were online, these could be printed and made accessible for people.

Menus and activity boards were not in accessible formats. Menus were not always on display or did not have accurate information. Some information had been made into an easy read format such as responses from surveys. However, the survey was not in an accessible format and was a long survey.

Not all people at the service felt listened to. For example, one person told us, they did not feel like they could speak with some staff as they did not feel like people took them seriously. People told us they had been involved in their care plans; however, some were still waiting to be involved in reviews. One person told us, “Staff were going to go through my care plan with me, but this hasn’t been done. It will need updating. Keyworkers are too busy. Its more paperwork than support work.”

The management team told us they worked in partnership with advocates of people. They held meetings and had conducted surveys to gather people’s views.

Satisfaction surveys had been carried out and results of these were discussed in a meeting with people living at the service. Meetings were held with people living at the service.

We are unable to say people received good equity in outcomes as people have told us they felt rushed and frustrated as reported in other evidence categories of this report. People were not fully in control of their care as at times this was dictated by the staffing levels at the service.

Leaders had not always fully considered people when changes were made to the service. For example, shift times at the service had changed which impacted the people living at the service. Staff told us overall the building was accessible, however some staff raised concerns regarding the accessibility to the decking area of the first-floor lounge. The provider had an activities co-ordinator who facilitated activities for people. However, staff told us there was some people who had wanted to go out but were unable to do so because of staffing levels.

We received no feedback from partners in regard to equity in access.

People’s needs were recorded in their care plans. The provider had an on-call system to ensure support was available in the event of an emergency. The provider had policies in place to challenge and address any discrimination.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.