Background to this inspection
Updated
17 March 2021
The inspection
This was a targeted inspection to check on specific concerns we had about catheter care, PEG Tube feeding, medicines, continence care, record keeping and the management of the service.
As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.
Inspection team
This inspection was carried out by two inspectors.
Service and service type
Village Green care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
Notice of inspection
This inspection was unannounced.
What we did before inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority, Healthwatch England and professionals who work with the service. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.
The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with people who used the service and eight relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with eight members of staff including the registered manager, nurses, care workers and catering staff.
We reviewed a range of records. This included five people’s care records and two medication records. We looked at five staff files in relation to training. A variety of documents relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.
After the inspection
We continued to seek clarification from the registered manager to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We spoke with two professionals who regularly visit the service.
Updated
17 March 2021
Village Green Care Home provides care and treatment to people with a variety of care needs including those living with dementia, physical disabilities, mental health needs and chronic health conditions. At the time of this inspection, there were 22 people being supported by the service.
When we inspected the service in September 2016, it was in ‘Special Measures’ following an inspection in June 2015 when we found widespread concerns about the quality of care provided to people, particularly those with complex care needs. Although improvements had been made in all areas during the inspection in September 2016 and the service was out of 'Special Measures', we were unable to change the rating because the service had not been supporting people long enough to evidence that systems and processes had been embedded.
At this inspection, we found systems and processes had been embedded, and the service provided safe, effective, caring and good quality care to people using the service.
There was no registered manager in post, but a manager was in the process of registering 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.
We found people were safe because the provider had effective systems to keep them safe, and staff had been trained on how to safeguard people. There were individual risk assessments that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be reduced. People’s medicines had been managed safely and administered in a timely manner by trained staff. The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely.
Staff had received effective training, support and supervision that enabled them to provide appropriate care to people who used the service. The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being met. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. They also had access to healthcare services when required in order to maintain their health and wellbeing.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. They were treated with respect and supported in a way that helped them to maintain their independence as much as possible. Staff had developed caring relationships with people they supported and the atmosphere within the service was caring and inclusive.
People’s needs had been assessed and they had care plans that took account of their individual needs, preferences and choices. Care plans had been reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed to ensure that these were up to date. Staff were responsive to people’s needs and they supported people quickly. A variety of activities were provided to support people to socialise and pursue their hobbies and interests. The provider had effective processes for handling complaints and concerns.
The manager provided stable leadership and effective support to the staff. The provider had effective systems to assess and monitor the quality of the service. They encouraged feedback from people, relatives, staff and professionals who worked closely with the service to enable them to continually improve. The service had received positive feedback about the quality of the environment and the care provided to people.