Victoria Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. People told us what being safe meant to them and knew who to raise concerns to if they did not feel safe. Staff understood how to ensure people’s rights were fully respected and had received training in safeguarding. A staff member told us, “Some forms of abuse are financial, neglect and physical and must be reported to the line manager, local authority and CQC.” A system for reporting, managing and recording safeguarding concerns was in place. The registered manager demonstrated how they learnt from incidents which affected people's safety and had implemented a process of thorough investigation, actions and outcomes and lesson learnt to prevent them from happening again.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People’s care plans and risk assessment were detailed and provided best practice guidance to enable staff to safely support the individual. Risks were managed using the least restrictive practices to ensure people were cared for safely whilst still maintaining their independence. Appropriate professionals had been consulted to provide specialist advice and support, for example, the speech and language team, and the mental health team.

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

People told us they felt supported by staff and that there were enough staff on duty. A relative said, “The home has done wonders for [relative], I think the staff are well trained they seem to know what they are doing.” We saw there were enough staff available on all floors, we observed staff assisting people at mealtimes and when people needed assistance with mobility. Staff were quick to respond when people asked for help. Staff were recruited safely, with relevant checks completed to ensure their suitability. Staff were trained for their roles, and this was audited and monitored. Regular staff meetings allowed the manager to talk to staff about any changes in people’s care needs and to remind them of any policies, new training etc.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.