We carried out a review of the data available to us about Charles Davies House Residential Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Charles Davies House Residential Care, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Visitors had to follow rules to prevent infection entering the home. These included having a COVID-19 test and the wearing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
¿ The layout of furniture had tried to maximise social distancing within communal living areas as much as practicably possible.
¿ To prevent infection outbreaks strict processes were followed when people were admitted to the home. Prior to admission a negative COVID-19 test result would be required followed by a period of self- isolation.
¿ Staff were required to take a COVID-19 test three times a week and people were tested, as a minimum, every 28 days. Where people or staff tested positive, they were required to self-isolate in line with current guidance.
¿ There was a good supply of PPE and this was also made available to visitors.
¿ A dedicated domestic team were also supported by staff in the cleaning of the premises. Cleaning was ongoing throughout the day paying particular attention to high touch areas such as door handles, light switches and handrails.
¿ Staff received training in the donning and doffing of PPE.
At our last inspection in December 2015, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
This unannounced, comprehensive inspection took place on the 31 July 2018. Charles Davies House is registered as a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and both were looked at during this inspection.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were kept safe. Staff understood how to protect people from risk of harm. People's risks were assessed, monitored and managed to ensure they remained safe. Processes were in place to keep people safe in the event of an emergency such as a fire. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures and sufficient numbers of staff were available to meet people's support needs. People received their medicines as required. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to hygiene and infection control.
People continued to receive effective support. People received support from staff that had the skills required to support them safely. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were encouraged to eat more healthily. People had access to healthcare professionals when needed, in order to maintain their health and wellbeing.
Staff encouraged people's independence. People continued to receive a service that was caring and respected their privacy. People were supported by staff who knew them well.
People continued to receive a service that was responsive to their individual needs. Support plans were personalised and contained details about people's preferences and their routines. People were supported to pursue hobbies and activities that interested them and processes were in place to respond to any issues or complaints.
The service continued to be well led, the registered manager understood their role and responsibilities and staff felt supported and listened to. People and staff were encouraged to give feedback and their views were acted on to enhance the quality of service provided to people. The provider worked in conjunction with other agencies to provide people with effective care.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Charles Davies House provides accommodation and support for up to 13 adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection visit 12 people were living there.
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.
People who lived at the home felt secure and safe in the knowledge that staff were available to support them, when they needed to be supported. The provider had systems in place to keep people safe that protected them from the risk of harm and ensured people received their medicines as prescribed.
There was sufficient numbers staff to meet people’s identified needs. The provider ensured staff were safely recruited and they received the necessary training to meet the support needs of people.
Staff sought people’s consent before providing support. Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.
People were supported to make choices and were free to prepare their own food and drink at times to suit them. People were encouraged to consider healthy food and drink options.
People had good access to health care professionals to ensure their health care needs were met.
People were supported by caring and respectful staff that encouraged people to be as independent as much as possible.
People’s health care and support needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. There were no complaints about the service.
The provider had established management systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service was consistent and to a high standard.
Care was planned and designed to meet people's individual health and welfare needs. A person who used the service told us, 'The care plan gives us a diagnosis, what the medicine is and how much I take.'
People received sufficient quantities of food and drink to meet their needs and were supported to make choices about what they ate and drank. A person who used the service told us, 'They do encourage better diets. I cook and I can get help.'
Managers and staff told us and we saw that the provider had robust recruitment procedures in place to ensure that people employed at the service were of good character. We saw that staff had the necessary skills, qualifications and knowledge to meet the needs of the people who used the service.
People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements for managing medicines safely.
The provider had robust systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided.
Everyone we spoke with was complimentary about the home and the staff that worked there. One person told us: 'I'm really happy. It's the best home I've lived in.' Another person told us: 'It's okay, I'm okay, it's working for me."
The people who used the service appeared at ease in their surroundings and spoke freely about their experiences. They told us how they felt safe at the home and had confidence in the staff to support them. One person told us: 'Most of the time I look after myself but the staff keep an eye on me." People told us how staff sought their views when planning their care and in the way the service was run.
Independence was encouraged and people told us about how they spent their time. They were involved in a wide variety of activities. These included domestic activities in the home, attending training courses and participating in social and leisure activities. The people we spoke with also told us how they kept in regular contact with their relatives. One person told us: 'They do try and get you interested in things'.