We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dyneley House 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 Dyneley House, you can give feedback on this service.
Dyneley House is a residential home providing accommodation and personal care for up to 24 people. Care is provided across 3 separate floors. Some people using the service are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, there were 20 people living at the home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People and relatives were overwhelmingly positive about the quality of care provided at the home. One person commented, “I think it is well managed because it couldn’t be a better place” and a relative told us, “It is brilliant here.”
Most aspects of medicines were safety managed but there were areas for improvement in the recording of topical medicines and thickening agent used for people with swallowing difficulties. Action was immediately taken when these aspects were raised. We received mixed feedback about staffing levels, but we did not find evidence of staffing levels having a negative impact on people's needs not being met. Risks to people’s care were identified, monitored and actions put in place. There were infection and prevention control processes and procedures in place.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The registered manager was passionate about providing high quality care to people and support to staff. People were engaged in activities they enjoyed, and everyone told us they would recommend the service to others. Care plans were detailed and centred around people's needs. There were quality assurance processes in place to ensure areas for improvement were identified and acted upon, and these had been mostly effective.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 25 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
The inspection took place on 25 May 2017 and was unannounced.
There was a registered manager 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe. Staff understood their role and responsibilities to keep people safe from harm. Risks were assessed and plans put in place to keep people safe. There was enough, appropriately recruited staff to safely provide care and support to people. Medicines were well managed and people received their medicines as prescribed. Emergency systems had been put in place to keep people, visitors and staff safe.
The service was effective. Staff received regular supervision and training needed to meet people's needs. Arrangements were made for people to see their GP and other healthcare professionals when required. People's healthcare needs were met and staff worked with health and social care professionals to access relevant services. The service was compliant with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
People received a service that was caring. They were cared for and supported by staff who knew them well. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People's views were actively sought and they were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was provided in ways that was easy to understand. People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. People were supported to eat and drink enough.
People received a high standard of personalised care that was responsive to their needs. It was clear during our inspection that the registered manager had worked with the staff, people and relatives to look for ways that would improve people's lives. The registered manager had introduced a number of initiatives to the staff team and it was clear that the service had continued to develop since our last inspection visit. People received person centred care and support. They were offered a range of individual activities both at the service and in the local community, based upon their hobbies and interests. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to make their views known and the service responded by making changes. Transitions for people moving to the service were well planned. Staff worked to ensure people had access to healthcare services.
People benefitted from a service that was well led. The registered manager and senior staff were well respected and demonstrated good leadership and management. They had an open, honest and transparent management style.
The provider had systems in place to check on the quality of service people received and any shortfalls identified were acted upon. The vision and values of the service were effectively communicated. The management team had a clear plan for further developing and improving the service people received.
This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 14 January 2015.
Dyneley House is a Residential Care Home and provides beds for up to 24 older people. It is owned by Greendown Trust and is a registered charity.
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.
People who used the service were happy living at the home; they told us they felt safe and well cared for.
The service provided a high number of staff to support people on an individual basis. The service had robust recruitment systems in place and encouraged people who used the service to be involved. Medication was administered safely.
The principles of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) were being adhered to; people were supported appropriately when decisions needed to be made on their behalf.
People had access to appropriate health care professionals as needed. We found clear records following GP visits and were able to see the outcome of the visit was recorded in the person’s care plan.
People told us they enjoyed the food in the home and were supported to have a balanced diet. We saw people with snacks and drinks throughout the day.
Staff were well supported and we saw evidence of regular supervision. All staff had received an annual appraisal in the last 12 months. Staff told us they had access to a variety of training options.
People were well cared for, we saw staff knew people well and people were treated with kindness.
Staff were able to give us detailed knowledge of the people who they were supporting.
The service offered a range of support to people to ensure their religious needs were met.
We saw people’s needs were assessed prior to them moving into the service, they were given detailed information about the service’s values and ethos.
Care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis, staff ensured people and their loved ones were fully involved with this. When family members were unable to attend the member of staff consulted them over the telephone. We saw when people made requests at their review these were followed up by the service and where practical were met. For example, one person was supported to move to another room with a better view, this was requested at a review and the person told us they were much happier in the new room and they enjoyed the view.
People valued the activities on offer and we saw people were having fun and joined in with a quiz on the day of our inspection. People’s preferences were recorded and discussed at their review. The service offered individual and group activities and employed an activities co-ordinator. They also paid for external people to come into the home and all of the people we spoke with enjoyed this. Trips were provided each month.
The complaints policy was easily accessible for people and their loved ones; however, the service had not received any formal complaints since the last inspection. The service had a residents meeting which some people attended.
The registered manager had been in post for 27 years and spoke with pride about the service. She told us the service had a stable staff team most of whom had been there a long time. She felt that well supported staff provided better care for people living there.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service and the service had relevant policies and procedures which staff had signed up to.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Relatives we spoke with told us they felt confident people were safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.
The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.
Is the service effective?
There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support.
People's health and care needs were assessed with them or their relatives. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People who used the service said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.
People's needs were taken into account with the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.
Visitors confirmed they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'All staff are very kind, helpful and loving. Everybody gets on together,' and 'I just cannot praise them (staff) highly enough.'
People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey.
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 responsive?
People regularly completed a range of activities.
Relatives of people who used the service knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. Although relatives we spoke with told us they had not needed to make a complaint, they told us they were confident any issues would be addressed immediately. People could therefore be assured complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.
Is the service well-led?
The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.
The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.
On the day of our visit the provider had organised an 'Oriental' lunch. We saw people who used the service and relatives eating the meal together. The atmosphere was relaxed, people were engaged in conversations and the staff interacted with people appropriately.
We spoke with three people who used the service and five relatives. They were all highly complimentary about the service. People who used the service told us that they 'Could not be in a better place.' and they 'Like it very much here'. One of the relatives we spoke with said the home was 'Absolutely wonderful' and another said the home was 'Excellent'.
People who used the service had individual care plans and 'Life Stories' that described the things that were important to them and what they liked to do. Their care plans were reviewed and updated each month and reflected their needs and preferences.
The provider had an effective system to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others. The views of people who used the service, their relatives and regular visitors the home were sought and the responses shared.
'I feel involved in how I am looked after and I can contribute to my care needs.'
'I discuss my care plan with my key worker on a monthly basis.'
'I am aware of my plan of care and I can contribute to my own care.'
We spoke with one relative who told us they had been involved in the development of their relative's care and care plan. They told us their relative's dignity was respected and independence was routinely encouraged.
People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home and they were well looked after. They made the following comments
'I am very happy here; I could not be anywhere better than here.'
'It is nice living here, this is my home now and I am very comfortable.'
'It is very good living here, I have friends and I am looked after quite well.'
'I have settled in well and I am totally happy living here.'
One relative who told us they were happy with the care and their family member was well looked after. They told us that the staff understood the care needs of their family member.
The four people we spoke with told us that they felt safe at the home and they would tell staff or the manager if they were worried about anything.