You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The inspection took place on 12 and 14 June 2018 and was unannounced on both days. At the last inspection in February 2016 the service was rated overall as good. At this inspection we found two breaches of regulation in Safe care and treatment and good governance.

Ivy Dene provides accommodation for up to 20 people with learning disabilities. “The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.”

On the days of our inspection there were 20 people living in Ivy Dene. The home was split into three sections Ivy Dene, Ivy Rose and Ivy House. On the day of our inspection there were 10 people living in Ivy Dene, 5 people at Ivy house and 5 in Ivy Rose.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in place, however they were absent from work due to maternity leave. An interim manager was in post and was supported by the deputy manager. 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.

Most people told us they liked living at Ivy Dene. People said they felt safe. Individual risk assessments for people were in place.

Staff understood how to ensure people were safeguarded against possible abuse and they knew how to report any concerns.

People said they received their medicines on time, but we found some weaknesses in the management of medicines.

There were regular staff training, supervision and appraisal opportunities.

People enjoyed the meals and the food and drink provision was suitable for people's needs.

Staff interaction with people was mostly kind and caring and staff knew people well. People were encouraged to retain their independence with daily tasks.

Staff knew people's individual preferences and these were reflected in the activities provided. However, these had decreased over the past four weeks due to staffing. The management team were interviewing for staff on the first day of inspection.

People knew how to make a complaint and there was a system for recording complaints and compliments.

People, relatives and staff felt supported by the registered manager and they were confident their views were valued and acted upon. Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of the provision, although these were not always sufficiently robust. Accident and incidents were completed and analysis of any trends were identified and acted upon.

The interim manager was aware of the strengths of the service and the areas to improve.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not always safe.

Medicines were not always managed safely.

Staffing levels were not always adequate to meet people's needs. Staff were recruited safely.

Individual risk assessments were in place.



Updated 25 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received regular training to ensure they had the necessary skills and abilities to carry out their role.

There was appropriate understanding of the legislation around people's mental capacity and the provider acted in accordance

with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People enjoyed the food and this met their nutritional needs.



Updated 25 August 2018

The service was caring.

Staff had a kind and caring approach.

People's dignity and privacy was respected.

Staff supported people with everyday care tasks. People's independence was promoted.


Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People had meaningful activities and opportunities for social interaction and staff knew each person well. However, staffing over the past four weeks had meant not all activities had been completed with people.

Care records were detailed for staff to have full knowledge of people's care needs.

Systems were in place to record complaints and compliments

about the service.


Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was not sufficiently well led.

Quality assurance systems were in place but were not fully

robust to sufficiently assess and monitor the provision.

There had been an interim manager in place due to the registered manager been absent from the service. The manager was aware of the

strengths and areas to improve the service.

People, relatives and staff thought the home was mostly well run.