We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Dove Project Plymouth and Cornwall DCA on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Dove Project Plymouth and Cornwall DCA, you can give feedback on this service.
People, relatives, staff and external healthcare professionals spoke highly of The DOVE Project. The service had strong person-centred values and placed people at the heart of their work. People had access to a stable staff team they knew well and achieved positive outcomes and strong relationships.
People were fully involved in their care and their wishes respected. One person said, “Staff are very much on time. It’s plenty of time, I wouldn’t mind having more [because they are nice]. They help me do anything I want to do”. People’s views were sought and their consent was always gained before any care took place. People were offered as many choices as possible in ways which met their individual needs. For example, by using pictures and objects of reference.
People’s care plans contained personalised information which detailed how they wanted their care to be delivered. Staff knew people very well and expressed care and affection for them when speaking with us.
Staff were highly valued and supported by The DOVE Project and the registered manager. All staff we spoke with were proud to work for the service and praised the high standards of care expected. Staff comments included, “People have a good life and that’s what we are here for.”
Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and management plans were put in place to ensure these were reduced as much as possible.
People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable.
There was strong leadership at the service and people, relatives and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. There was a positive culture at the service and staff felt their voices were listened to.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who worked hard to promote their independence and sense of wellbeing. We were given examples of the staff going above and beyond for people. For example, helping them access new opportunities and helping them move house.
Staff were provided with the training, supervision and support they needed to care for people well.
The registered manager was passionate about improving the service and had plans for future projects to benefit people. There were quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.
The registered manager and their team were committed to delivering high quality and safe care to people and involving them in the planning of their care and the running of the service.
More information is in the full report
Rating at last inspection: This service was last inspected on 12 and 16 March 2018 where it was rated requires improvement overall. The areas of effective, responsive and well led required improvement. In June 2017 Selborne Care Limited was purchased by Care Tech, with a new manager registered with the Care Quality Commission in June 2018. During this inspection in 2019 we found these areas had been fully addressed and the service had improved to good.
Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled based on the registration date of the service.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service.
This inspection took place on 12, 13 and 16 March 2018. Five days notice was given as the service is small and we needed to be sure the manager would be available when we visited the agency offices. This time also enabled the manager to arrange home visits. This allowed us to hear and observe people’s experiences of the service. The people we met were supported by staff 24/7 and had limited verbal communication skills.
At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found Effective, Responsive and Well Led required improvement.
In June 2017, Selborne Care Limited was purchased by Care Tech. The registered manager left in November 2017. A new manager had been appointed in November 2017and was in the process of applying to be the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The new management team were in the process of updating the governance systems and identifying the areas which required improvement. They were motivated and positive about the future and had good ideas for developing the service. However, we found areas across the inspection that required improvement including better analysis of people’s behaviour, implementing regular reviews and improving recording of people’s goals and aims. The manager and provider promoted the ethos of honesty and admitted when things had gone wrong. They were keen to address the findings of the inspection quickly and sent an action plan promptly following inspection feedback addressing all areas identified within the report.
People’s human rights were protected. However, a better understanding and recording of the code of practice in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) was required. People’s nutritional needs were met because staff followed people’s support plans to make sure people were eating and drinking enough and potential risks were known. However, where people lacked consent to agree healthier meals were in their best interest, the documentation to support these decisions was lacking.
Policies and procedures across the service required improvement to ensure information was given to people in accessible formats when required, for example the service user guide, complaints information, and support plans.
People’s care was not always responsive to their needs. There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate people’s and if appropriate, their relatives or advocates involvement in regular reviews of people’s support plans and goals. These processes help ensure people’s individual needs and preferences are known, shared and planned for. Support plans were personalised and guided staff to help people in the way they liked. Staff knew people well, their likes, dislikes and preferences for support.
People were treated equally and fairly. Staff adapted their communication methods dependent upon people’s needs, for example simple questions, flash cards and/or pictures. Verbal information and explanations about care were given to people with cognitive difficulties but not always in a written or pictorial format they could understand.
People were supported by staff who were compassionate, kind and caring. All staff demonstrated kindness for people through their conversations and interactions. People were supported by a consistent staff group who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. As far as possible, people were actively involved in making choices and decisions about how they wanted to live their lives. People were protected from abuse because staff understood what action to take if they were concerned someone was being abused or mistreated.
Risks associated with people’s care and living environment were effectively managed to ensure their freedom was promoted. People’s independence was encouraged and staff helped people feel valued by engaging in everyday tasks where they were able, for example laundry and washing up.
The provider and management team wanted to ensure the right staff were employed, so recruitment practices were safe and ensured that checks had been undertaken. Staff underwent a thorough induction and ongoing training to meet people’s needs effectively. People’s medicines were managed safely.
People received care from staff who had undertaken training to be able to meet their unique needs. People were supported to access health care professionals to maintain their health and wellbeing. People led full and active lives enjoying a variety of individualised activities such as horse riding, pottery and disco’s.
We made a recommendation in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We found one Regulation was breached. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
The inspection took place on 11 and 12 November 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location was a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure that someone would be present in the office.
The D.O.V.E Project is a Domiciliary care agency providing personal care and support to people with a learning disability who live in their own homes. On the day of the inspection twelve people were supported by The D.O.V.E Project with their personal care needs.
The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
On the day of the inspection staff within the office were relaxed, there was a calm and friendly atmosphere. Everybody had a clear role within the service. Information we requested was supplied promptly, records were clear, easy to follow and comprehensive.
People spoke highly about the care and support they received, one person said, “Staff are all really lovely and caring”. Care records were personalised and gave people control over all aspects of their lives. Staff responded quickly to people’s change in needs. People or where appropriate those who mattered to them, were involved in regularly reviewing their needs and how they would like to be supported. People’s preferences were identified and respected.
Staff put people at the heart of their work; they exhibited a kind and compassionate attitude towards people. Strong relationships had been developed and practice was person focused and not task led. Staff had full appreciation of how to respect people’s individual needs around their privacy and dignity.
People’s risks were managed well and monitored. People were promoted to live full and active lives. Staff were highly motivated, creative in finding ways to overcome obstacles that restricted people’s independence.
People medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed, on time and understood what they were for. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as GPs, social workers, occupational therapists and physiotherapists.
People told us they felt safe. Comments included, “I definitely feel safe” and “I feel very safe and secure”. All staff had undertaken training on safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse, they displayed good knowledge on how to report any concerns and described what action they would take to protect people against harm. Staff told us they felt confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.
People were supported by staff who confidently made use of their knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005), to make sure people were involved in decisions about their care and their human and legal rights were respected.
People were supported by staff teams who had received a comprehensive induction programme, and tailored training that reflected their individual needs. A health care professional commented, staff were very effective at carrying out what they had learnt, and followed advice with skill and enthusiasm.
People were protected by the service’s safe recruitment practices. Staff underwent the necessary checks which determined they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults, before they started their employment.
The service had a policy and procedure in place for dealing with any concerns or complaints.
No written complaints had been made to the service in the past twelve months.
Staff described the management to be supportive and approachable. Staff talked positively about their jobs. Comments included, “I love my job, it’s both challenging and rewarding and I love it”, “It’s different every day, I get so much enjoyment from making a difference. I know what I need to do and I have the right tools to do it, I love my job” and, “It is a real family atmosphere here, everyone is motivated to do well for the people and each other”.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Incidents of concern were appropriately recorded and analysed. Learning from incidents and concerns raised were used to help drive improvement and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the service.
People we spoke with told us they were very happy with the service they received from the agency and they were enjoying their lives. One person told us "I love it in my own home. I like holidays and do so much I couldn't do that before". A member of staff told us that the person they cared for was 'now attending a dance and music club and had been accepted by the wider community and being asked out to functions by them'. The staff member said 'This had been a massive achievement for the client and it makes me so proud and happy to see their confidence growing'.
We saw that people had specific and individualistic care plans. These had been updated daily in accordance to people's wishes. Care plans were easy read with pictures and colour coded charts. This demonstrated an awareness of the individual persons understanding and abilities to read and understand their own care plan.
Support staff worked at a level required by the individual and promotion of independence was evident. Staff had all received a thorough core training programme that included safeguarding and attended regular updates.
There were sufficient support workers to meet people's needs and appropriate background checks had been completed on all staff. Audits were in place to continually monitor and assess the quality of care and support provided.
Information and care records within the agencies office were well organised and safely stored. Detailed assessments were completed before people started using the service and this ensured that people's needs could be met. Information about people's needs were regularly updated and people using the service were involved in this process.
We saw that staff treated people respectfully and people's personal choices, rights and privacy were taken into account during the planning and delivery of care. All the people we met looked happy and contented in their homes and with the people supporting them. One person said 'The staff are very good, they understand me and respect my privacy'
Staff were aware of issues relating to abuse and had clear procedures to follow to ensure that people were kept safe. We saw that correct procedures had been followed when it had been considered that a persons safety and well being was at risk.
Staff we spoke to said that training was well planned and specific to the needs of people they supported.
Systems were in place to regularly check the quality of care provided and changes had been made when required.