Victoria Community Care (Cornwall) Limited

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 21 October 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

Safeguarding systems were in place to safeguard people from the risk of abuse, staff understood their responsibility and were knowledgeable about different types of abuse and how and who they would report concerns to. Staff understood the process of recording accidents and incidents, including escalating concerns to leaders. Risks to people were identified and actions in place to mitigate risks, including environmental safety.

We checked and found that staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice control and freedom over their lives.

The service received praise from people using it, their relatives and staff. Staff were committed to ensuring people received person centred care. People told us, “We can't fault them, they'll do anything, and they even sing together with [relative], they have a laugh and say they'll enter Eurovision with them next year. It's such a wonderful agency. They always stay for the full time, and they are genuinely nice people.”

Day to day care was managed effectively, and both the registered manager and staff demonstrated open, inclusive values which helped build trust with those receiving support.

People had regular carers, and people told us they were very comfortable with the agency and the carers.

There were paper Medication Administration Records (MARs), and these were available in people’s home for care staff to complete. However, the paper MARs did not have facilities to record why ‘as required’ medicines were used. There were no protocols to guide staff on when to offer these medicines. This meant there was a risk staff might not be consistent in their approach. At the time of the assessment the provider produced a protocol on ‘as required’ medicines and made the MAR charts clearer.

Care plans were person centred and provided staff with detailed information on how to support people based on their assessed needs, choices and preferences. A professional told us, “They know their clients well, if you call into the office to ask about anyone they don’t need to reach for a folder, they know the people they care for.” Relatives told us, “There is a care plan here, and the carers update the book each visit. Sometimes, I don't get here, but I always check to see what's been going on in the book, and it's always right up to date with recent visits. They are very amenable to change appointments, if necessary, at short notice.”

Safeguarding, infection control, and risk management processes were well understood and consistently applied. Staff received regular supervision, training and support. We received positive feedback from staff in relation to their experience of working at the service. Staff described feeling supported and spoke positively about working for the service, with one staff member saying, “The manager always says thank you, we had a death not that long ago and the manager thanked everyone for being part of the team and how they cared for them, it is nice to know we are appreciated.” and “The boss is brilliant always willing to help out.”