CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
Valley View Court
Scatcherd Drive, Oakworth, Keighley, BD22 7NU
Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Inadequate and remains in special measures; inspectors found kind care but serious safety, medicines and care-planning failures.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the previous Inadequate rating. Inspectors visited on 10 and 11 July 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was not always safe. Medicines were not always given as prescribed, risks were not properly assessed or managed, and records did not show that people with high nutritional needs received the support set out in their care plans. Some people also had restrictions without the required mental capacity assessments or best-interest decisions.
There were positive findings. Staff were kind and respectful, staffing levels were considered sufficient, recruitment checks were safe, and infection control arrangements were satisfactory. However, care plans and management checks were not reliable enough to make sure people's needs were consistently met.
The overall rating remains Inadequate, and the home remains in special measures. The caring rating improved to Good, while effective changed from Requires Improvement to Inadequate and well-led improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. CQC said it would monitor progress and normally re-inspect within six months.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff speaking to people politely and supporting them with dignity. People said staff were caring.
“We saw many examples of staff approaching and responding to people in a kind and caring way and staff appeared to know people well.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe recruitment checks, including Disclosure and Barring Service checks.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Infection control
The home had arrangements for preventing and managing infections, including the effective use of protective equipment.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Food presentation and choice
Although nutritional monitoring was poor for some people, inspectors saw pleasant mealtimes with plentiful, well-presented food and choices.
“We observed people had pleasant mealtime experiences and were provided with choice and of food and drink, which looked well-presented and plentiful.” from the report
Medicines were not managed safely
seriousSome medicines were not given as prescribed. Records and storage arrangements were inconsistent, and some required instructions or protocols were missing.
“The provider had failed to ensure safe medicine management systems were in place.” from the report
Risks and nutrition were not controlled
seriousRisk assessments did not always give staff the guidance they needed. Records did not show that some people received high-calorie snacks or other nutritional support required by their care plans.
“The lack of robust risk management processes meant people were not protected from harm or injury.” from the report
Mental capacity safeguards were missing
seriousSome people had restrictions, including sensor mats, without the required capacity assessments and best-interest decisions.
“Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not in place for some people despite having restrictions placed on them.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingCare plans were not always completed promptly or personalised enough. Separate electronic systems also meant important information was not always available to all staff.
“People's needs were not always appropriately assessed and their needs were not clearly reflected within their care plans.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome people did not have plans for how they wanted to spend their time and were observed sitting for long periods.
“We observed this meant people spent long periods of time sitting in their rooms, in communal areas.” from the report
Management checks missed problems
seriousAudits and other quality checks did not identify or address the problems inspectors found. Actions after incidents were not always followed up.
“Systems to record, assess, monitor and improve the service were not sufficiently robust.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that every medicine is stored, recorded and given exactly as prescribed?
- 02What has been changed to make sure risk assessments contain clear, personalised instructions for staff?
- 03How do you now record high-calorie snacks, fluid intake and other nutritional support for people at risk?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and legal authorisations checked when restrictions such as sensor mats are used?
- 05What is the current process for completing and updating care plans, and how are records shared between care staff and health professionals?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection of the service after the previous Inadequate rating, with infection prevention and control also checked as part of the Safe key question. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 September 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Valley View Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Inadequate rating throughout.
- September 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingstayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2023InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 October 2019.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.
Or stay at home with a private carer
Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.
Other services run by City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council
1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.