Archived: Digby Manor

Digby Manor is a registered care home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 26 people. At the time of our inspection 24 people were living at the home.

There was 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. The Registered Manager had been in post since May 2016.

People were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately.

Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People had a variety of food, drinks and snacks available throughout the day. They were able to choose the meals that they preferred to eat and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and had access to health care professionals as required. They were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction between staff and the people living at the location.

People’s rights to privacy were upheld by staff that treated them with dignity and respect. People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs.

People received care from staff that knew them well and benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided, to ensure that people were benefitting from a service that was continually developing.

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

Some people told us that they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. One person told us, “Oh yes, I could talk to the staff if I was not happy about anything”.

We spoke with staff about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager told us that there had been no applications and showed us the policy and procedures they followed. They told us that staff had received relevant training and had access to the policy and procedures. Staff told us that they had received this training.

We saw that the service was safe, clean and hygienic. The home had an effective infection control system. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly, so preventing any unnecessary risks. All the staff told us how they worked to prevent infection and told us how they would manage an outbreak at the home so that the risk of infection spreading could be reduced.

Is the service effective?

One person commented, “I was having falls all the time at home before I came here. I haven’t had one fall since I have been here”. Another person told us, “They help me get my prescriptions. It stops me worrying if I have the right medication.”

People explained how their care and welfare needs were met. All people told us that they had support with health appointments and felt that the service was flexible. One person told us, “It’s smashing here. If you want anything the staff will do it for you”.

Is the service caring?

We saw that staff communicated well with people and were able to explain things in a way that could be easily understood. We saw that they did not rush people in the home and we saw that the interactions were caring. All the relatives we spoke with said they felt the care was very good. One relative told us, “It’s a brilliant service. The staff are really good. They always manage to listen. I am very happy with the care”.

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. We saw that people were given choice in their care and all the relatives we spoke to told us they were very happy with the care. All the people we spoke with told us that they were happy with the care and support they received.

Is the service responsive?

All the relatives told us that they were very happy with the service. One told us, “The staff are very helpful. Anything we need they will help, I can’t fault them. They have contacted the nurse or doctor when my relative has needed them”.

We saw that staff responded to people's requests for help in a timely way.

Some of the people we spoke with told us they were involved in decisions about their care. They told us that the staff were flexible and responded to their requests at times they had requested.

We saw that there was a complaints policy at the home. People told us they found the manager very approachable and would not hesitate to raise any issues or complain.

People’s care needs had been reviewed at least every six months. We saw that when people's requirements had changed the provider had responded and reviewed their care needs so that they could meet their changed support and care needs.

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service well-led?

We spoke with the registered manager. They showed us that there was an effective system to regularly assess the quality of service that people received. We found that the views and opinions of people using the service and their carers, family and relatives were also regularly recorded. The manager showed us that activities had been arranged in response to the views and opinions they had received.

We saw the home had systems in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from any accidents, complaints, whistleblowing or investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Also, staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the service and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality care service at all times.

People received care that met their needs. One person said, 'I am perfectly happy here, I cannot grumble.' We found that people had regular access to healthcare professionals so that people's health care needs were met.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from harm.

Medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately. Some improvements were required to the quality of recording on the medication adminstration charts.

The views of people using the service and their relatives were listened to. Actions were taken where appropriate to improve the service.

Staff spoken with were able to tell us about people's needs so that they received care in a way that they preferred. Both relatives spoken with told us they were consulted about their relative's care and kept informed about their health so they felt involved in their care. One relative told us 'I know X is being looked after because X is always clean when I come, and I come at any time'.

Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support the people who lived in the home.

The provider had clear procedures in place to identify, respond and follow the referral process to ensure people were protected against abuse.

There were systems in place to monitor how the service was provided. Improvements were made by listening to the views of people using the service, their relatives and taking the appropriate actions to address these.