Victory Locum Limited

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

We found 3 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, staffing and fit and proper persons employed. Staff did not always assess risks to people’s health and safety or mitigate them where identified. The provider failed to ensure staff had the necessary qualifications and skills to carry out their roles safely. The provider failed to ensure staff were recruited safely. There were widespread concerns about the safety of the care people received. The provider did not promote a learning culture. Lessons were not learned and improvements made when something went wrong. Most people did not feel safe. Staff were often late and people told us there were occasions when staff did not turn up. Infection and control practices were not always safe.

This service scored 44 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Most people and their relatives told us they did not feel concerns about safety and their support were listened to or acted upon. For example, 1 relative told us, “We have been given multiple phone numbers for office staff and never know who to call, we’ve even called people who are abroad. On one occasion when trying to [raise concerns] we were given a wrong number, I feel to divert us from making a complaint. Yesterday I tried to contact them four times, left multiple messages and still had no response.” Another relative told us, “If you complain they seem to panic but otherwise ignore you.”

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 did not promote a learning culture in the service. Incidents and complaints were not actively investigated to identify lessons learned and drive improvements.

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.

Most relatives and people told us they did not feel safe or receive safe care. This included feedback about staff not turning up to some care visits. One relative told us, “I understand why you are investigating this company. They are awful. I would not feel (family member) was safe if I was not here, (family member) has no confidence in some of them and doesn’t feel at all safe.” Another told us, “[Staff] often leave the premises unsecured with the Keysafe being accessible and doors unlocked.”

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.

People were not always protected from harm of abuse. Records showed staff had raised concerns during supervision, however there was no evidence these concerns were explored or acted upon. This meant people were at raised risk of harm. We reviewed the provider’s care visit records for 11 people. Evidence showed that more than 25% of calls were late. People told us some calls were missed but the information we received from the provider did not include this data. The provider did not carry out any auditing of call data. They did not have effective oversight of the visit information or have systems in place to capture and report accurately on care calls. This meant people were at risk of missed and late calls.

People and relatives did not feel risks were safely managed. One relative told us, “We are extremely unhappy with the care. Twice this week alone (family member) has had to use the pendant alarm for help as they have been left with no walking frame. I do not feel they are safe and in fact, feel they are at risk. Staff prepare food which is meant to be cut up but they don’t do it which leaves (family member) at risk of choking . The way they move (family member) is sometimes not safe.”

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 assess the risks to the health and safety of people using the service. Risk assessments were not always in place or did not contain enough detail, which meant mitigation measures to keep people safe were not always known to staff. Where hazards were identified, for example moving and positioning risks or pressure sores, there was no full assessment to explore this further to support people and staff to reduce these risks as far as possible.

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 and their relatives did not feel staff had sufficient training to perform their roles safely or well. One relative told us, “We have had so many problems especially around training. They seem to not know even the basics or anything about his care.” One relative was satisfied with the care their loved one received. People’s experience of care was also negatively affected by language barriers between staff and people. One relative told us, “We can’t understand some of them at all and they can’t understand us.”

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.

Staff did not have the necessary training to ensure they could carry out their roles safely. This meant people were at risk of receiving care from untrained staff. Staff were not always recruited safely. We reviewed 10 staff recruitment files. The provider failed to ensure they had completed all relevant checks in line with requirements. For example, the provider failed to ensure they sought a full employment history. We found one staff member did not have the required level of criminal records check. This increased the risks of people being supported by unsuitable staff. We reviewed the provider’s training records. These showed staff had not always received the training needed to enable them to carry out their role safely. For example, staff were required to be signed off as competent following some training sessions. There was no evidence of competency assessments taking place. This meant people were at risk of being supported by untrained staff.

People and relatives shared concerns about infection prevention and control practices of some care staff. One relative told us, “They throw their gloves and aprons into our garden .” Another said, “They are ok using PPE. But they are really not [good at] cleaning, leaving the commode full and bins overflowing.” Poor practice in this area placed people at risk of cross infection and infection spread.

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.

People were not protected from risks associated with infection prevention and control. Risk assessments did not contain the required information to inform staff how to support people safely. This placed people at risk of infection.