The Vineries

“Positive feedback was received from people using the service, their relatives and visiting health care professionals.”

“We identified concern around staffing. Regular agency staff were used to cover shifts, but agency profiles contained very little information and did not include details about the agency workers previous experience in care or experience working with older people or dementia care. The registered manager assured us that agency staff had an onsite induction and did not work unsupervised. However, on the 1st day of our visit, they were unable to provide clear induction records, and they were unclear if the employment agency carried out supervisions. A recent whistleblower commented on a lack of suitable skills from agency staff. Interview notes were not robust, and interview questions did not relate well to the regulated activity or explore staffs understanding, values and behaviours.”

“Staff records did not clearly evidence how staff had been adequately supported throughout their induction. or if their competencies had been clearly assessed before working unsupervised.The impact of staff vacancies affected staff morale. The registered manager and deputy manager were covering shifts, including day and night shifts so we were unable to see how they could effectively support and manage staff when working on a spit shift pattern. Following this discussion the registered manager was taken off nights.”

“Records were disorganised making auditing more difficult as they were not in chronological order. The dependency tool was significantly out of date, (January 2026). The document was very crude and did not take into consideration: Activities, the layout of the building or people’s sensory needs. At least 5 people were described as frail. This was not reflected in the dependency tool.”

“People had insufficient activity; the activity board was blank. Care staff told us they were busy providing direct care to people and did not have time to provide support with activities. An activities coordinator had been sourced for a few days a week which was not sufficient. People reported not going out and only having external entertainment occasionally. Not everyone at the service had regular visitors making the day monotonous. Lunch time supervision was poor and only 5 people were in the dining room.”

“Staff told us staffing could be a struggle, but said the care was not impacted and staff were caring. One said, “No its hard on regular staff and agency staff who don’t have the necessary skills.” Another staff said, “Agency won’t know who’s on blood thinners or know who is under a deprivation of liberty safeguard, (DoLs)” Another said, “Some days staff are struggling but go above and beyond.” The impact of staff who were not unfamiliar with people’s needs increased the risks of unsafe care and it was difficult to see how risks were mitigated without a clear induction overview.”

“Training and supervision for staff was mostly up to date and mostly online. Most staff were experienced and had opportunity to do enhanced areas of study. Direct observations of practice were carried out a minimum of twice a year and people and relatives spoken with felt staff were caring and competent.”

“Whilst the registered manager responded appropriately to safeguarding concerns and staff knew what actions to take to safeguard people in their care. We found a police incident which had not been reported to us and a hospital admission which resulted in significant safeguarding concerns being raised against the hospital. As the person was still under the care of the home CQC should have been notified.”

“People…”