Victory Locum Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Most people did not receive person-centred care. Processes to gather feedback and continuously improve people’s experience of care were ineffective. People told us it was difficult to get hold of management staff and they did have confidence issues raised would be resolved. Reviews of people’s care did not take place.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The people and relatives we spoke with told us they did not feel in control of planning their support. They did not feel they were at the centre of their care. For example, some relatives told us it was difficult to get in touch with office and management staff if they needed to discuss anything. One relative said, “They are very difficult to contact and extremely disorganised.” One relative was satisfied with all aspects of the care delivered to their family member.

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.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Most people told us they did not feel they were enabled and encouraged to provide feedback about their care and support. They did not feel confident any complaints would be taken seriously and explored thoroughly. One relative told us, “We have complained about issues and short term things appeared to change then revert back, they don’t listen and we do not feel they respond on our behalf. They never follow anything up and I often feel that we are a problem for them.”

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 did not always have their views listened to. The provider failed to ensure people were always involved in decisions about the service and their care. People told us they had raised a number of concerns with the provider, however there was limited evidence these were listened to, looked into and resolved. The provider did not have clear systems and processes to capture and analyse people’s feedback.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People and their relatives told us they were not always involved in care planning and reviews. They did not feel their views and feedback were sought and acted upon. One relative told us, “We have had no reviews or requests for feedback as promised and in fact I have not heard from the management for months. The communication is extremely poor.”

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 told us they completed regular reviews with people about their care, however, there was no evidence of this taking place.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.