Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Broad Horizons

Valmark House

90 Mill Road, Mile End, Colchester, CO4 5LJ

Requires improvementpublished 25 November 2023, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found several environmental risks, inconsistent infection control, a recruitment check that had not been fully completed, and a medicines record that did not match the prescribed instruction. The manager acted during the inspection to reduce these risks.
Effective?
Good
Care assessments and plans reflected people's needs and communication methods. Staff had relevant training, supported people's choices about food and activities, and worked with health and social care professionals.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with warmth, kindness, dignity and respect. They understood people's communication styles and encouraged independence.
Responsive?
Good
Care was personalised and people were supported to make choices and keep relationships with family and others. Inspectors found that some preferred activities, including swimming and trampolining, had not taken place for some time.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
The provider's governance checks did not identify several risks and there was no effective service improvement plan. The report says this was a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but weaknesses in safety checks and leadership oversight.

This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector visited the home and spent time with the two people living there. They observed care, looked around the house and gardens, and checked care plans, medicines records, staff records, risk assessments and quality checks.

The home provided kind and personalised care. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and communication, and helped them access health services and the local community. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good.

The Safe and Well-led ratings were Requires Improvement. Inspectors found missed environmental risks, inconsistent infection control, a medicines record that did not match an instruction, and weaknesses in the provider's checks and improvement planning. The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in March 2018.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff knew people well and provided compassionate support. Relatives and professionals also gave positive feedback about the care.

    People received kind and compassionate care by staff who knew them well.from the report
  • Choice and independence

    People were supported to make decisions, personalise their rooms and do tasks they could manage themselves. Staff used the least restrictive approach.

    People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interestsfrom the report
  • Consistent staff team

    There was low staff turnover, so people were supported by staff they knew. Staff received induction, training and regular supervision.

    People benefited from a low turnover of staff, which meant they received consistent support from staff they knew.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Environmental safety checks

    serious

    Inspectors found uncovered radiators, an unsecured cupboard containing cleaning fluids and wardrobes that had not been checked for a falling risk. These issues were corrected during the inspection.

    On the first day of our inspection, not all radiators had covers on to protect from the potential risk of skin burns when in use.from the report
  • Infection control practice

    needs fixing

    Staff were not always following effective infection control practice because textile towels were being used instead of paper towels. A paper towel dispenser was installed during the inspection.

    However, staff were not always following effective IPC, where they were using textile towels, rather than paper, as part of their IPC.from the report
  • Medicines records

    needs fixing

    A person's prescribed dose was correct, but the medicines administration record did not reflect the medicine being given. The manager corrected the record during the inspection.

    However, although the person was receiving the right dosage medicine, it did not reflect what was being given on the person's medication administration record [MAR].from the report
  • Planned activities

    minor

    People had spontaneous choices and outings, but some individual interests had not been supported for some time. The manager said they would look at restarting activities such as swimming and trampolining.

    Although this provided spontaneity, more planned activities were needed, ensuring enough staff cover, to support people's individual interests.from the report
  • Management oversight

    serious

    Quality checks had not identified several risks. There was no service improvement plan, no effective emergency staffing plan, and the manager did not have enough protected time for management duties.

    The provider's systems and processes that assessed, monitored, mitigated risk and keep them updated on best practice were not fully effective.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks are now completed to identify risks from radiators, cleaning fluids, furniture and other parts of the environment?
  2. 02How do you check that infection control procedures are followed every day, including the use of paper towels?
  3. 03How are medicines records checked against prescribers' instructions after any dose change?
  4. 04Which individual activities have been restarted, and how do you make sure there is enough staff cover for them?
  5. 05What is the current improvement plan, and how much protected time does the registered manager have to monitor safety and quality?

This inspection covered all five CQC questions, the care provided and the home environment, including infection prevention and control; the inspection activity ran from 13 September to 6 October 2023, with visits on 13 and 18 September. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Valmark House

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Valmark House

  2. March 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. October 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. July 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.

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.

Another option

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.

Same provider

Other services run by Broad Horizons Limited

1 other service on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Mill House

Colchester, CO4
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home
Nearby

Other care homes near Colchester

Mill House

Colchester, CO4 · 0.0 km
Good
Residential
Rated 7 years agocare home

Hazel Villa

Colchester, CO4 · 0.5 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 17 months agocare home

Woodland View

Colchester, CO4 · 0.9 km
Not yet rated
NursingDementia
Not yet ratedcare home

Woodland View

Colchester, CO4 · 0.9 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 5 years agocare home

Tall Trees

Colchester, CO4 · 0.9 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 6 months agocare home

Tall Trees

Colchester, CO4 · 0.9 km
Good
NursingDementia
Rated 5 months agocare home