Victory Care Limited

Updated 10 September 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own homes.

The service had a manager who was 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

We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection. This was because it is a small service and we needed to be sure that there would be staff in the office to support the inspection.

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 and professionals who work with the service.

During the inspection

We spoke with one person who used the service and one relative about their experience of the care provided. We also spoke with two members of staff and the manager.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people’s care records and medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the manager to validate evidence found, including risk assessments and amended procedures. We received this information from the manager.

Updated 10 September 2019

About the service

Victory Care Limited is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own homes. At the time of the inspection the manager, who was also the provider, confirmed the service was providing personal care to two adults.

CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also consider any wider social care provided.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff went through a recruitment process so that the provider only employed suitable staff, though one aspect of this process needed to be made more robust.

Care plans and risk assessments provided guidance for staff to follow. However, not all identified risks had been assessed or action taken to mitigate and reduce any identified risks. Staff were not always aware of how to reduce risk. People felt safe with staff from the service. Staff understood potential signs of abuse. People and relatives were involved in assessments of potential risks to safety and in identifying measures to keep them safe.

People received their medicines as prescribed. They were protected from the risk of infections through staff working practices. People had enough staff to meet their needs. Staff undertook induction training that supported them to have the knowledge and skills to do their job well and effectively meet people’s needs.

People were provided with care and support that ensured they had good nutrition and hydration. They had access to healthcare that maintained their health and wellbeing. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them to do this. The manager was following up with the appropriate agency on one aspect of staff practice that relatives had identified to protect their family member’s safety.

Staff knew people well. People had developed positive relationships with staff which helped to ensure good communication and support. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

People or their representatives were involved and consulted when making changes to how their support was provided. Staff knew and understood the needs of the people using the service and care was provided based on their assessed needs. Staff were responsive to changes in people's needs to ensure people received timely intervention to maintain their health and well-being.

The person and the relative knew how to raise any concerns or make a complaint. The provider had a policy and procedure which involved investigation and solutions to put things right. This provided information about how these would be managed and responded to. This needed information about referral to another statutory body to approach if they were not satisfied with the investigation.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of care and support people experienced through quality assurance systems and processes to drive improvements in the service though some of these needed to be made more robust.

The person, a relative and staff spoke positively about the management and leadership of the service. The person and the relative said staff were very friendly and caring, and they had good relationships with them. The provider listened to feedback and acted to make improvements to the service. The service worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure people achieved good outcomes from their care and support.

Rating at last inspection:

The last inspection on 6 March 2016 rated the service as good.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk