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 carried out on 24 November 2016

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 22 January 2014

During a routine inspection

This planned review was undertaken by two compliance inspectors and a specialist advisor.

During our inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, six members of staff and the manager. The specialist advisor also spoke with another three members of staff and the manager.

People who used the service told us that they had care plans and they had signed them. People were complimentary about the staff and care they received. One person told us, �Staff always come quickly when I use my call bell.� We saw that people were involved and consulted about their care and treatment.

People told us they liked the food provided by the service. They told us that they had a choice of food and they could always ask for a different meal if they did not like the food on offer.

People told us they enjoyed living at the service and were being provided with support and opportunities to promote their health and well-being.

People told us that there was always a member of staff available when they needed them. One person told us, �I have one to one support in the afternoon with a member of staff and this has never been missed.� They told us they had regular meetings with the manager and the chef and they were able to talk to the manager at any time.

We saw that people and their relatives were involved in how the service was run. For example, the service regularly sought feedback from who used the service and their relatives through regular meetings and surveys.

Inspection carried out on 5 March 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 37 people using the service at the time of our inspection visit. We spoke with the ten members of staff that were on duty and with six people who used the service. We also spoke with two relatives and we made observations throughout the visit. We saw that staff communicated with people in a calm manner and in a way that they understood. We observed that they were doing this respectfully and treating each person as an individual. For example, one person became upset so staff took them to a quiet room to talk in private. We saw that staff supported people during mealtimes and offered regular refreshment.

All the people we spoke with told us that there were lots of activities and outings on offer at the centre. We observed a wide range of these activities during our inspection. For example, arts and crafts, sports activities and life coaching. One person told us that they had the opportunity to have one to one time with a life coach so that they could talk about their aims and achievements.

We spoke to staff about their knowledge of safeguarding. All staff were able to tell us that they were aware of their role and responsibilities in relation to safeguarding and knew what to do when reporting incidents.

All the staff members we spoke with told us that they felt supported. However, they all said that there were concerns about staffing levels. This was confirmed by the manager and by people using the service.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)