We carried out a review of the data available to us about Victoria House 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 House, you can give feedback on this service.
Victoria House is a residential care home for up to 25 people with physical disabilities. The home is owned by the Disabilities Trust and is purpose built over two levels. Facilities include two adapted kitchens, a large and a small communal lounge, two passenger lifts, activities room, training/computer room, sensory room and gardens.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Staff had received safeguarding training and were aware of how to recognise and respond to risk. Individualised risk assessments were in place and people were supported with positive risk-taking to maintain their independence, choice and control. There were sufficient numbers of staff who were deployed appropriately in the service to meet people’s needs and support people to live safely and as they had chosen to.
Staff were equipped with the necessary skills to provide effective care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring; they promoted people’s independence and treated them with dignity and respect.
People were supported to live their lives to their fullest, as active members of the community which enhanced their lives. They were supported to follow their interests and engage in things important to them. People’s care plans were very person-centred and were reviewed regularly with them to ensure they were involved, and goals were set, which they were supported to achieve.
The service was well-led; systems were in place to assess and improve the quality of the service and complaints were responded to thoroughly. There was an open culture and learning was encouraged to drive improvement.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
This inspection was undertaken on 3 December 2015, and was unannounced. The service was last inspected on 9 April 2014; at that inspection the service was compliant with all of the regulations that we assessed.
Victoria House is situated in the east of Hull on the banks of the river Humber. The home offers accommodation to a maximum of 26 people with a physical disability. The home is owned by the Disabilities Trust, which is a national organisation. There is a large dining room on the ground floor, with a sitting area and a large lounge on the first floor. Rooms are spacious and equipped with en-suite facilities.
At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.
The service was purpose built to support people who were living with a physical disability. A wide range of equipment was available which helped people to maintain their independence. Two purpose built rehabilitation kitchens were in place; in which the height of the worktops and hobs could be adjusted to enable people to access them more readily and allow people to develop their independent living skills.
People who used the service had their assessed needs met by kind and attentive staff who understood their abilities, levels of independence and personal preferences. During interactions staff were empowering, supportive and respectful. People’s freedom to make choices and enjoy their privacy were respected by staff.
People who used the service were supported to make their own decisions about aspects of their daily lives. Staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when there were concerns people lacked capacity and important decisions needed to be made.
Staff had completed a range of training pertinent to their role which enabled them to effectively meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff told us they received supervision, support and professional development. Systems were in place to manage medicines safely. Staff who administered medicines had completed relevant training to enable them to do so safely.
People’s nutritional needs were met; their preferences and special dietary needs were known and catered for. Advice from relevant health care professionals such as dieticians and speech and language therapists were requested as required.
People who lived at the service were safe. Care workers had been trained to recognise the signs which may indicate someone was suffering from abuse and knew what actions to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. Staff had been recruited safely; relevant checks had been completed before prospective staff commenced working within the service. Suitable numbers of staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.
Before people were offered a place within the service a pre admission assessment was completed. The assessment along with relevant information from the placing authority was used to develop a number of personalised support plans. Risk assessments were in place to reduce the known risks to the people who used the service.
A quality assurance system was in place that consisted of audits, checks and service user feedback. When shortfalls were identified action was taken to improve the level of service.The registered provider’s senior management team were aware of the day to day running and management of the service.
Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) information was displayed to enable people to request their support as required. The registered provider’s complaint policy was displayed at the entrance to the service so people could access it if they needed to raise a concern or make an official complaint.
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service and the staff supporting them, and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
' Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.
People who used the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service, completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
' Is the service responsive?
Staff knew the people they cared for and understood their preferences and personal histories.
The manager told us there had been no complaints since our last inspection. People knew how to complain. One person told us, 'I don't have any complaints; I'm really happy thank you.'
We saw that people's care needs were kept under review and care plans were updated when required.
' Is the service safe?
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.
The people who used the service told us they were happy and that they felt safe.
People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.
The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.
' Is the service effective?
Advocacy information was displayed within the home and sent to the families of people who used the service so that people could get help if they needed it. This meant that people who used the service could access additional support when required.
The people who used the service had their health and care needs assessed. We saw the care plans reflected their current needs.
The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.
' Is the service well led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
The service had a quality assurance system and records we looked at showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.
People who used the service and their relatives told us;
'I go to all the meetings I can, they are great; they give us a chance to have our say' and 'We talk about everything to do with the home, summer fairs, activities and it's why we have the eye readers (assistive computer technology) and computers.'
'It's lovely, it's kept clean and fresh; it wasn't long ago that all the rooms were redecorated.'
A relative told us, 'The staff have gloves and aprons, you see them wearing them' and 'It's always so clean, not like what you hear about other places, it smells nice, looks clean and she (the person who used the service) always looks well presented, clean clothes and what have you.'
Care plans contained risks assessments in relation to manual handling, emotional support, pressure care and accessing the community.
People who used the service were protected against the risk of unlawful or excessive control because the provider had made suitable arrangements to educate staff on how to deal with difficult situations. The registered manager explained, 'We have put together support plans to guide staff when someone is acting inappropriately. We never use restraint.'
Staff received appropriate training and professional development. We spoke with four members of staff who told us they had been on a range of training courses and that their personal development was supported. We saw evidence that team meetings were held regularly and were used as a forum to discuss any changes to people's needs or best practice.
People had their comments and complaints listened to and acted on. We saw that recent complaints had been responded to appropriately, investigated and resolved were possible to the satisfaction of the complainant. This provided assurance that complaints were taken seriously by the organisation.
People told us they felt safe at the home and could approach the manager if they had any concerns.
People told us they were aware they had a care plan and how they could influence the content of this through reviews and meetings. They told us they were supported to attend health care appointments by the staff.
People told us they could approach the manager if they had any concerns and felt these would be dealt with appropriately.