You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 2 November 2019

About the service

Ivy Dene is a residential care home providing personal care to 20 people. The service supports people with complex needs and/or people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection 19 people were using the service. The accommodation is made up of three separate units. The largest unit accommodates 10 people, and this is larger than current best practice guidance.

The service did not consistently apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This guidance helps ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice and independence. The service promoted independence and provided person-centred support within the constraints of an environment where a large number of people shared communal facilities. The provider had plans to improve the layout of the home and the environment which would help ensure the principles and values were consistently applied. People were encouraged to access the community and undertake person centred activities.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of the thematic review, we carried out a survey with the care and development director at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service rarely used restrictive intervention practices and then only as a last resort. When these practices were used it was in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The premises were clean and well maintained. We made a recommendation in relation to the risk assessment of radiator covers.

People told us the service was safe. There had been a lot of staff changes and this had been unsettling for people. However, safe staffing levels had been maintained and the provider was recruiting new staff.

People’s needs were assessed, and their care plans and risk assessments were detailed. This helped to make sure care was person-centred.

People’s communication needs were assessed and where needed appropriate support was provided.

People were supported by kind and caring staff, who promoted their independence.

People were supported to eat and drink a balanced diet which took account of their needs and preferences. People were supported to stay healthy and to access the full range of NHS services.

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.

People were supported to maintain relationships with family and friends. People took part in a variety of social activities in the home and in the community. The service was planning how to give people more opportunities to get involved in the local community.

The provider had systems in place to check the quality and safety of the services provided. Any shortfalls we found during the inspection had already been identified and were being dealt with. There was a service improvement plan in place.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update

The ra

Inspection areas



Updated 2 November 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 2 November 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.



Updated 2 November 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.



Updated 2 November 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.



Updated 2 November 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.