Victory Locum Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

We found 2 breaches of the legal regulation in relation to consent and safe care and treatment. The provider failed to follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure people’s capacity was assessed in relation to decision making. Processes to assess people’s needs before support started and on an ongoing basis were ineffective.

This service scored 62 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and relatives did not always feel that people’s care needs were well assessed and understood by care staff, or that they were involved in this process. Care provided did not always meet people’s care needs.

We were not able to speak with staff. We received some general positive and negative feedback by email. Staff were concerned about losing their sponsorship visa to work in the UK. We also received concerns from 3 staff before the assessment about poor working conditions.

The provider failed to suitably assess people’s needs. Assessments for specific risk areas were not completed, and we found conflicting information in people’s records. This meant people were at raised risk or poor care or care which did not meet their needs, as information staff used to support people was not correct and accurate. There was no evidence people’s needs were assessed prior to care commencing. Care plans did not contain enough information to allow staff to deliver care safely. This placed people at risk of receiving unsafe care.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider failed to ensure the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) were followed. The provider failed to ensure the mental capacity of people was assessed fully. Records were incomplete or unclear where people lacked capacity. Decisions were made on behalf of people without a best interest assessment being carried out. This placed people at risk of having decisions made against their wishes or which may not be in their best interests. Care plans were often signed on behalf of people by relatives. There was no evidence the provider had checked relatives had the legal authority to do this. This placed people at risk of having decisions made for them without their knowledge or which may be against their wishes, without their capacity being assessed.