We carried out a review of the data available to us about Victoria Community Care (Cornwall) Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Victoria Community Care (Cornwall) Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
Victoria Community Care (CC) is a Domiciliary Care Agency that provides care and support to adults, in their own homes. The service provides help and support with people’s personal care needs in St Austell, Par, Roche, Mevagissey, Gorran Haven and surrounding areas. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and support with meals.
At the time of our inspection 64 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately or through Cornwall Council or NHS funding. There were 44 staff employed some of those were office based to coordinate and manage the service.
There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.
People were extremely satisfied with the quality of the service they received and the caring approach from staff. People told us; “They are amazing,” “They are my lifeline” and “We are very blessed, they are marvellous, very professional.”
People told us they had not experienced a missed care visit. The service had robust and effective procedures in place to ensure that all planned care visits were provided. The service's visit schedules were well organised and there were a sufficient number of staff available to provide people's care visits in accordance with their preferences.
People told us that their visits were on time but there were 'rare occasions' when care staff could be late for their planned visits. However people, and relatives, did not have a concern regarding this as they understood that any lateness was due to care staff needing to provide extra support to a person in an emergency or due to travel issues, especially in holiday seasons. People told us that Victoria office staff would phone them if a care worker was going to be late which gave them reassurance that their visit would still continue. Victoria operated an on call system outside of office hours. Care staff told us managers would respond promptly to any queries they might have.
People received care and support from a consistent team of staff with whom they were familiar. Staff arrived on time and stayed for the full time allocated. People spoke positively about the staff that supported them and told us they were always treated with care, respect and kindness. Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity. Staff had developed good relationships with people and were familiar with their needs, routines and preferences.
Staff were respectful of the fact they were working in people's homes. The service offered flexible support to people and were able to adapt in order to meet people's needs and support them as they wanted.
There were processes in place to protect people and the security of their home when they received personal care, including staff wearing uniforms and carrying identification. People received information about who they should expect to be delivering their care so they were aware of who was due to call upon them.
Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their responsibilities to safeguard people from abuse. Potential risks to people's safety and wellbeing had been assessed and managed.
Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided. Accidents and incidents were reported and reviewed to reduce the risk of an incident occurring again.
Medicine procedures were safe. The service supported people with their medicines by prompting them. Records showed when prompts had been made in the daily records at people’s homes.
Staff were recruited in a safe way and available in sufficient numbers to meet people's needs. Staff were supported by a system of induction, training, one-to-one supervision and appraisals to ensure they were effective in their role.
Staff knew how to ensure each person was supported as an individual in a way that did not discriminate against them in any way. People's legal rights were understood and upheld. Everyone told us staff ensured their dignity and privacy was promoted.
People told us staff had sought their consent for their care. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. Staff had received relevant training and understood the principles of the Act.
People's care plans were detailed, personalised and provided staff with sufficient information to enable them to meet people's care needs. The care plans included objectives for the planned care that had been agreed between the service and the individual. All of the care plans we reviewed were up to date and accurately reflected each person's individual needs and wishes. The service's risk assessment procedures were designed to enable people to take risks while providing appropriate protection.
Staff supported people to have a nutritious dietary and fluid intake, assisting them to prepare and eat food and drinks as they needed.
The registered provider and management team provided clear leadership to the staff team and were valued by people, staff and relatives. There was a whole team culture, the focus of which was how they could do things better for people.
People and relatives all described the management of the service as open and approachable. People and their families were given information about how to complain. There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed.
Victoria Community Care (Cornwall) Limited is a community service that provides care and support to adults of all ages, in their own homes. The service provides help with people’s personal care needs in St Blazey, Mevagissey, St Austell and surrounding areas. This includes people with physical disabilities and dementia care needs. The service mainly provides personal care for people in short visits at key times of the day to help people get up in the morning, go to bed at night and give support with meals.
At the time of our inspection 46 people were receiving a personal care service. These services were funded either privately, through Cornwall Council or NHS funding.
There was a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day-to-day running of the service. However, the registered manager had resigned from their post with effect from 31 July 2015 and a new manager had been appointed. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
We carried out this announced inspection on 13, 14 and 16 July 2015. We told the provider three days before that we would be coming. This was to ensure the registered manager and key staff were available when we visited the agency’s office. It also meant we could arrange to visit some people in their own homes to hear about their experiences of the service. The service was last inspected in March 2013 and was found to be meeting the regulations.
People we spoke with told us they felt safe using the service and told us, “Victoria Community Care have looked after me very well”, “Happy with the service” and “No complaints whatsoever”.
Staff had received training in how to recognise and report abuse. All were clear about how to report any concerns and were confident that any allegations made would be fully investigated to help ensure people were protected. There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The service was flexible and responded to people’s changing needs.
People told us they had a team of regular staff and their visits were mostly at the agreed times. One relative told us, “They [staff] are rarely late but if they are I ring the office to check if staff are coming”. Another relative said, “Timekeeping has been an issue but this has been better in the last 2 months”. Five of the eight people we spoke with told us there had been one or two occasions during a two week period in June 2015 when their visits had been missed. The service had investigated the reasons for these omissions and action had been taken to prevent a re-occurrence. People and their relatives told us they had not experienced any missed calls since that time and they felt the problems with the service delivery at that time had been resolved.
People received care from staff who knew them well, and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. People and their relatives spoke well of staff, comments included, “I get on with all the staff”, “We are happy with all the staff”, “They [staff] treat me very well” and “They [staff] are very caring”.
Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and interests, as well as their health and support needs, which enabled them to provide a personalised service. Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.
The management had a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected.
Staff told us there was good communication with the management of the service. Staff said of management, “They always take the time to talk to you”, “They [management] are very good” and “We [staff] are supported”.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to make sure that any areas for improvement were identified and addressed. Where the provider had identified areas that required improvement, actions had been promptly taken to improve the quality of the service provided.
A compliance action was set because the service had not reported to the Care Quality Commission an incident that had resulted in the injury of a person who used the service. However, our inspections on 6 November 2013 and 4 March 2014 had found that this compliance action had been met.
We inspected records held including care records, medication records, staff training and support records and staff rotas/time sheets.
We found these records to be generally robust but noted improvements were needed in certain areas to ensure that procedures were followed accurately in order that full and positive care was delivered according to the stated plan of care.
We spoke with the registered manager and training co-ordinator. We also spoke with three members of staff on the telephone following the inspection visit, they all said Victoria Community Care was a good organisation to work for.
We saw, since our last inspection, robust systems had been developed to ensure the quality of the service was monitored.
We saw that care plans were descriptive and detailed. However they were not regularly updated.
We found that people were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were trained and aware of the types of abuse and what to do if they suspected abuse had occurred.
There was an effective and robust recruitment process in place.
We found the systems to assess and monitor the service that people received, or to identify, assess and manage risks to people's health, safety and welfare were inadequate.
We found that important events affecting people's welfare, health and safety were not reported to the Care Quality Commission so that, where needed, action could be taken.