You are here

Queen Elizabeth's Foundation Dorincourt Good

We are carrying out a review of quality at Queen Elizabeth's Foundation Dorincourt. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 14 January 2017

orin Court is a residential home. It offers a range of living services for people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and autism. There are 14 self-contained flats, two group homes for five and six people and a larger home for 20 people, with overall capacity for 45 people. At the time of the inspection 43 people were receiving care and support.

Some people had significant communication needs and used body language, gestures or sounds to communicate. Some people could use a few key words to communicate their needs, whilst others were able to talk or use technology to communicate.

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.

There were sufficient staff to keep people safe. There were recruitment practises in place to ensure that staff were safe to work with vulnerable people. People were involved in the recruitment and selection of the new manager.

People were protected from avoidable harm and people told us that they felt safe. Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to demonstrate that they knew the procedures to follow should they have any concerns.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and kept relevant and accurate records. However where some people had an as required medicine, there were no guidelines in place to tell staff when and how people should have them. We have made a recommendation.

Staff had written information about risks to people and how to manage these. Risk assessments were in place for a variety of tasks such as personal care, use of equipment, health, and the environment and they were updated frequently. The registered manager ensured that actions had been taken after incidents and accidents occurred.

People’s human rights were protected as the registered manager ensured that the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed. Where people were assessed to lack capacity to make some decisions, mental capacity assessment and best interest meetings had been undertaken, however they lacked details. We have made a recommendation. Staff were heard to ask peoples consent before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had sufficient to eat and drink. People were offered a choice of what they would like to eat and drink. People’s weights were monitored on a regular basis to ensure that people remained healthy.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being. People had regular access to health and social care professionals.

Staff were trained and had sufficient skills and knowledge to support people effectively. There was a training programme in place to meet people’s needs.

Although some improvement could be made in staffs knowledge on autism and the Mental Capacity Act. People were involved in delivering safe guarding training. There was an induction programme in place which included staff undertaking the Care Certificate. Staff received regular supervision.

People were well cared for and positive relationships had been established between people and staff. Staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner.

Relatives and health professionals were involved in planning peoples care. People’s choices and views were respected by staff. Staff and the registered manager knew people’s choices and preferences. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.

People received a personalised service. People’s care needs were reviewed on

Inspection areas



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people were identified and managed appropriately. Staff were aware of individual risks and how to keep people safe.

Staff understood and recognised what abuse was and knew how to report it if this was required.

There were enough staff to meet the needs of people. All staff underwent safer recruitment checks to make sure that they were suitable before they started work.

Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely. However, there were not always guidelines in place for �as required� medicines.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was effective.

Mental Capacity Assessments had been completed for people where they lacked capacity, however they lacked relevant detail. Applications had been submitted to the local authority where people who were unable to consent were being deprived of their liberty.

Staff had the knowledge and skills to support people. Some people were involved in delivering safe guarding training. Staff received regular supervision.

People had a choice of healthy and balanced food and drink. People�s weight was monitored and effectively managed for any changes.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare and social care appointments to maintain their health and wellbeing.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was caring.

People were well cared for. They were treated with care and kindness. People�s dignity and privacy was respected.

Staff interacted with people in a respectful, caring and positive way and used individual communication methods to interact with people.

People, relatives and appropriate health professionals were involved in their plan of care.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred. Care needs and plans were reviewed regularly. People were involved in planning their care.

There were activities offered, which people told us they enjoyed. However, people told us that they wanted more activities in the community.

People and their relatives told us they felt listened to. Complaints had been responded to in line with the organisations policy. People were involved in the running of the home.



Updated 14 January 2017

The service was well led.

There was an open and positive culture.

There were robust procedures in place to monitor the quality of the service. Where issues were identified, actions plans were in place these had been addressed.

People, staff and relatives said that they felt supported and that the management was approachable.