• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Dalemain House Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

19 Westcliffe Road, Birkdale, Southport, Merseyside, PR8 2BL (01704) 568651

Provided and run by:
G McNair

All Inspections

21 June 2016

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 21June 2016.

Dalemain House Residential Home is a care home which provides personal care and support for up to 24 older people. The home is located in a residential area, close to the town of Southport, which can be reached by the local transport services. The home is a large converted house and all areas are accessible by a passenger lift and there is ramped access to the front garden.

There were 23 people living at the home when we carried out the inspection.

A registered manager was 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 and families that we spoke with said the home was a safe place to live and care was provided in a safe, kind and caring way by respectful staff. They described how there was a lovely family atmosphere at the home and that staff were engaging and positive. We observed interactive and warm engagement between people living at the home and staff throughout the inspection.

The staff we spoke with could clearly describe how they would recognise abuse and the action they would take to ensure actual or potential abuse was reported. Staff confirmed they had received adult safeguarding training.

Staff told us they were well supported through the induction process, regular supervision and appraisal. They were up-to-date with the training they were required by the organisation to undertake for the job and training records confirmed this. Staff had been appropriately recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. People living at the home and staff told us there was sufficient numbers of staff on duty at all times.

A range of risk assessments had been completed depending on people’s individual needs. Care plans were well completed and they reflected people’s current needs, in particular people’s physical health care needs. Risk assessments and care plans were reviewed on a monthly basis or more frequently if needed.

Safeguards were in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way. Medicines were administered individually from the medication trolley to people living at the home. Checks and audits were in place to monitor that medicines were managed in accordance with the home’s policy and national guidance.

The building and equipment was clean, well-lit and clutter free. Measures were in place to monitor the safety of the environment and equipment.

People’s individual needs and preferences were respected by staff. They were supported to maintain optimum health and could access a range of external health care professionals when they needed to. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and their preferred routines. A varied programme of recreational activities was available for people to participate in.

People told us they enjoyed the meals. They told us the quality and quantity of the meals was good. There was plenty of choice. Drinks and snacks were available throughout the day.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing support or care. The service had taken account of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Appropriate applications to deprive people of their liberty under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) had been submitted to the Local Authority. Mental capacity assessments were generic in nature and not decision specific in accordance with the principles of the Act. We made a recommendation regarding this.

People said the owner and manager were approachable. People said the service was well managed and they said their views were sought about how to develop the service.

The culture within the service was and open and transparent. Staff and people living there said the management was both approachable and supportive. They felt listened to and involved in the running of the home.

Staff were aware of the whistle blowing policy and said they would not hesitate to use it. Opportunities were in place to address lessons learnt from the outcome of incidents, complaints and other investigations.

A procedure was established for managing complaints and people living at the home were aware of what to do should they have a concern or complaint.

A wide-range of audits or checks were in place to monitor the quality and safety of care provided. These were used to identify developments for the service.

4 December 2014

During an inspection in response to concerns

We considered all the evidence we gathered under the outcome we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found '

Is the service safe?

This was a responsive inspection and we did not look specifically at this area.

Is the service effective?

This was a responsive inspection and we did not look specifically at this area.

Is the service caring?

Some people were getting up very early in the morning; as early as 5.00 am. There were individual night care plans in place which outlined the people preferred to get up this early. However, the people we spoke with experienced memory loss and were not aware of the time. There was no information in the care records to clarify why each person liked to get up this early. Furthermore, we did not see evidence to suggest the person's relative or representative were involved in developing the care plans.

A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

Is the service responsive?

This was a responsive inspection and we did not look specifically at this area.

Is the service well led?

This was a responsive inspection and we did not look specifically at this area.

22 January 2014

During a routine inspection

The provider informed us that consent to any care or treatment was always sought by members of staff. One person using services said, `the staff are very nice and always ask if you need any help - they are always there for you.` Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We spoke with several people using services and their comments were positive related to all aspects of their care and support. Medication was handled appropriately and kept in a safe locked cabinet. We saw medication was prescribed and given to people appropriately and, any no longer needed, was kept safely and disposed of appropriately.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. All the required safety checks were carried out before any new staff were allowed to start work at Dalemain House Residential Home which ensured the safety of all people using services. There was an effective complaints system available and any complaints people made were responded to appropriately. Several people who were visiting the care home told us, `if we had a problem, we would just to talk to one of the staff, or the manager.`

14 November 2012

During a routine inspection

People we spoke with told us they were looked after well and were happy with the care and attention they received. Relatives we spoke with told us that staff were always attentive and that the manager was easy to contact and very responsive if they had any concerns. Some people were unable to communicate with us, however we observed staff being sensitive to their needs and interacting with them respectfully. We saw staff asking people's views and seeking their consent throughout our visit.

We looked at the care records of four people and we saw that up to date and person centred care plans were in place which supported staff to be able to deliver the care required. The home had systems in place to ensure people's medication was given safely and in a timely manner.

Staff we spoke with were able to describe how they would identify and report any signs of harm or abuse. The provider might find it useful to note that safeguarding was not included in the list of mandatory refresher training for all staff.

The home had systems in place to support staff to be suitably skilled to meet people's needs. The home had a system of supervision and appraisal to monitor performance and support staff to carry out their work.

The manager kept a record of all incidents and accidents in order to learn from them and make changes to how the service was delivered. People were involved in feeding back their views through annual surveys and through residents' meetings.

7 December 2010

During a routine inspection

During our visit to the home on the 7th December 2010 we spoke to 5 people who use the services (residents) and 2 of their visiting relatives. The feedback we got from these people was very positive across all of the outcomes in this report. We were told by residents that they felt involved in making decisions about their care and welfare, family members also told us they felt the same. Numerous positive examples were given by residents and this covered areas such as staff being non-judgmental, caring, attentive at all times and supportive in keeping them as independent as possible. Many residents told us that they felt safe; they believed their care needs were being met by capable staff.

Residents confirmed to us that they have access to information about meals and the arrangements for mealtimes. We were told that menu choices were viewed by them before meal times; they were given the opportunity to make their individual preferences for choosing a meal and choosing whether to eat in the dining room or in their own bedroom. One resident confirmed that if required she could make a request for a meal that was not in the menu choices and the Registered Person would always accommodate her wishes even at short notice. Another resident told us that the food was 'very good'.

We found that a number of residents had personalised their rooms, they told us they had made choices about their environment, including temperature, furnishings and d'cor.

One of the residents explained that they had spoken with a potential member of staff who was looking around as part of the interview process. The resident was asked by senior management to talk with her and explain what the home was like and his view of what it would be like to work here. He enjoyed the opportunity to speak with potential staff.

In discussions with a number of residents and their relatives they expressed very positive comments about the staff and the Registered Person, comments suggesting that they are all responsive to their requests and that 'nothing is too much trouble', the home always has a 'nice calm atmosphere' and 'there are always enough staff to meet peoples needs and spend time with them'

Residents told us that they were able to register with a General Practitioner and dentist of their own choice. We were told that staff at the home safely manage their medicines and ensure that they are provided at the correct times as they need them.