Valley View Court

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key inadequate. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and support needs were assessed when they moved into the home. Assessments covered different aspects of people’s care and support such as, mobility and moving and handling, nutrition and hydration, personal care, communication and medicines management. Care plans were developed and documented within the providers electronic care planning system in line with people's assessed needs. The provider had embedded a system which ensured care plans and records were reviewed or when people’s needs changed. The registered manager told us they involved people and their relatives as much as they could to try and agree a plan that was person centred.

The home included a gym area and space for health professionals who provided therapy to people regularly. We observed a number of therapy sessions that were being provided as part of people’s rehabilitation programme. People spoke positively about the quality of therapy they received from the heath team. Goals were set as part of the rehabilitation programme, and these were monitored by health professionals.

There was a mixed response about the quality of food provided to people at the service. Even though alternatives were offered to people. One person said, “Well they ask us from a menu but often what you choose isn’t what you get and its sandwiches at teatime every night and the staff don’t know why so you just have to have what your given. The food isn’t up to much”. A few people told us they did not always get what they chose. One person said, “We get asked what we would like for the next day’s meal but it’s not often what you ordered, especially at teatime.” We reviewed the mealtime audits completed at the home. Feedback was not always positive about the quality of food given to people.

The registered manager told us they worked with various professional teams to support people with their care needs. We saw evidence of the in-house therapy team and social workers working with people and conducting reviews to monitor people’s progress.

We received mixed feedback about the team approach at the home. Some professionals said the team was open to discussion regarding the care and support needs of people, as well as any necessary changes or recommendations. Other professionals told us communication could be an issue at times, and this could be affected by movement of staff from one unit to another. They found when staff are moved within the home information sometimes got missed making it more difficult and delaying the assessment process and discharge planning. Attempts had been made between the home and professionals to improve on communication, but this had not always been successful.

People were not always supported to access healthcare services and support when required. Medical advice from GP was not sought promptly by staff when required. During our observations, we observed a person who was unwell, it had been raised by a health professional previously, but no action taken. The team was prompted during the site visit to seek medical advice.

We received similar feedback from health professionals who felt the team did not take prompt action at addressing health concerns for people. One professional shared an example of when people had a fall or decline in their mobility, the home did not always utilise therapy staff on site who could help or offer advice.

Staff kept good records of the care and support they provided to people. This was person centred and in line with their support plan and guidance. There was evidence that people’s care and support was routinely monitored and measured.

We received mixed feedback about how people’s health and wellbeing was monitored during their stay at Valley View Court. One professional stated they did not always receive a handover regarding people’s progress which impacted people’s care, whereas people and relatives felt they were kept informed of any changes.

The provider was previously in breach of regulation 11 Need for consent of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 as they had failed to ensure people’s care and support was delivered in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005). Improvements were found at this assessment and the provider was no longer in breach of this regulation.

Records included information about people’s capacity and how they were able to refuse or give consent for specific decisions. Where applicable, appropriate MCA assessments had been completed and DoLS applications had been made. These were being monitored by the registered manager regularly. There was no one at the home who had any conditions. We observed staff asking people for their consent as they provided care and support.