You are here

Dalwood FarmHouse Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 28 April 2017

Dalwood Farmhouse is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to three people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection three people were living at the home. This inspection took place on 15 March 2017 and was unannounced. We returned the following day to meet with the deputy manager and complete the inspection.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was on leave at the time of the inspection and the service was being run by the deputy manager.

Following the last inspection in September 2015, the registered manager had not taken action to improve the way risks were managed. Plans to assess and manage the risks people faced did not always contain up to date information or provide guidance to staff on the support that people needed. The plans did not include information on how to safely evacuate people from the building in the event of a fire or other emergency.

The service did not always act in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves.

The registered manager did not have effective systems to assess, monitor and improve the service being provided. The action plan submitted following the last inspection had not been followed and the improvements the registered manager had said they would make had not been completed.

Medicines were safely managed and people who use the service were positive about the care they received. Comments from people included, “I am generally happy here, I have everything I need” and “I am happy living here”.

There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and harm and staff knew how to use them. Staff understood the needs of the people they were supporting.

Staff received training suitable to their role and an induction when they started working for the service. They demonstrated a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities, as well as the values and philosophy of the service.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was not safe.

Plans to manage risks people faced did not always contain up to date information or provide guidance to staff on the support people needed. This had been identified at the last inspection and the registered manager had not taken action to address the shortfall.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff treated people well and responded promptly when they requested support.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was not always effective.

The service did not always act in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people did not have the capacity to consent to care.

Staff received training to ensure they could meet the needs of the people they supported. Staff recognised when people’s needs were changing and worked with other health and social care professionals to make changes to care packages.

People’s health needs were assessed and staff supported people to stay healthy.

Caring

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was caring.

Staff demonstrated respect for people who use the service in the way they interacted with, and spoke about, people.

Staff took account of people’s individual needs and supported them to maximise their independence.

Staff provided support in ways that protected people’s privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People had individual support plans, which set out the support they needed and how they would like that support provided.

Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs, which enabled people to maintain their skills.

People told us they knew how to raise any concerns or complaints and were confident that they would be taken seriously.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 28 April 2017

The service was not well-led.

The registered manager had not taken action that was necessary following the last inspection.

The quality assurance systems were not effective and did not ensure there were clear plans to address shortfalls and plan improvements.