Victory Locum Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We found 1 breach of legal regulation in relation to governance. The provider failed to ensure effective governance systems were in place. Records were not always accurate or complete and the provider failed to follow their own policies. There were widespread failings in the leadership and management oversight of the service. Staff were not well supported. Quality assurance and audit processes were ineffective. There was no improvement plan to show how the provider planned to develop the service. Concerns raised by staff were not acted upon.

This service scored 32 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

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.

Leaders did not promote a listening culture within the service. We found no evidence people influenced changes in the service. The registered manager told us they held regular staff meetings where staff had an opportunity to share any concerns and discuss people’s care needs. We reviewed meeting minutes from the previous 12 months. We found these meetings were focused on expanding the business and attendees were mostly office and administrative staff. We did not find evidence of regular engagement with care staff, discussions of people’s care needs or the opportunity for staff to raise concerns.

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 and leadership team in the service did not have the knowledge or skills to effectively lead the organisation. The provider and leadership team failed to identify areas of concern we found during this assessment.

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 actively raised concerns during formal supervision, however there was no evidence these concerns were investigated to keep staff and people safe. There was no evidence lessons were learned to drive improvement and keep staff and people 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 ensure there were effective systems in place to engage with staff. We reviewed supervision records and found staff had raised concerns. There was no evidence the provider had addressed these concerns. This placed people and staff at risk or poor or unsafe care. The provide had a license to recruit skilled staff from overseas. During the assessment this was removed by the Home Office due to concerns about staff treatment and working conditions. This demonstrated a failure to provide an inclusive, open and fair culture in the service.

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.

Quality assurance and governance systems were inadequate. The provider did not have processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Risks to people using the service were not always identified. We found multiple examples where records were missing or incomplete. The provider failed to maintain oversight to ensure records were accurate, complete and contemporaneous.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

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 have improvement plans in place to demonstrate how they were going to develop and improve the service. The provider could not evidence where they had learned and made improvements based on feedback or quality assurance processes. Accidents and incidents were not reviewed to help identify any themes or trends, this included missed and late calls. This placed people at risk of similar incidents happening again as the provider did not have oversight of this.