You are here

Archived: Danemere Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 October 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 October 2016.

Danemere is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for one adult with an acquired brain injury and associated learning disability.

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.

Relatives were happy with the support arrangements provided. They told us their family member was safe and treated with respect. The person was cared for by an established, motivated and well trained staff team.

The person had their needs assessed and received care and support in accordance with their needs and wishes. They said they were able to make choices about their day to day life and were involved in decisions about their care and support.

There were procedures in place to help keep the person safe. These included a robust recruitment process and training for all staff to make sure they were able to work with vulnerable people and recognise and report any suspicions of abuse. The person told us they felt safe at the home.

New members of staff received an induction which included shadowing experienced staff before working independently. One member of staff said, “It was not just a case of shadowing a more experienced member of staff and then you got on with it. It was a case of shadowing a member of staff and then being shadowed to ensure we were competent”.

Staff received training to understand their role and to ensure the care and support provided to the person was person centred, meeting their individual needs. Staff received supervision and appraisals and told us they felt supported by the registered manager.

Staff monitored the person’s health and sought advice from healthcare professionals to meet their specific needs. The person had access to equipment to assist them to maintain their independence and ensure their comfort. The person was supported by a consistent staff team in a relaxed and unhurried manner.

The care plan provided information about how the person wished to be cared for and staff were aware of the person’s individual care needs. The person was able to take part in activities both at the home and in the local community. The home had access to a vehicle which enabled the person to get out and about on a regular basis.

Risks were assessed and appropriate control measures implemented in areas such as travelling, preparing meals, and having a presence in the community as well as relevant environmental risk assessments being carried out within the home.

Systems were in place to ensure the person received their medicines safely. All staff had received medicine administration training and had been assessed as competent before they were allowed to administer medicines.

Staff we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of the legal processes that protect people’s legal and human rights including decision making and consent .

As much as possible the person using the service was supported to make choices and decisions about daily life. Opportunities were taken to consult with them. Staff communicated in a respect manner, giving the person time to make choices and decisions. When the person had made their decision this was seen to be respected.

The service sought the views of the person and their relatives as appropriate to gauge their satisfaction and used the information to make improvements to the service. The registered manager and provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 October 2016

The service was safe.

The person was protected from the risk of abuse because staff were trained and understood how to report it.

The person�s medicines were managed safely.

Risks to the person�s safety were identified and care plans identified the support they required to minimise risks.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 October 2016

The service was effective.

The person�s rights were protected because the correct procedures were followed including where a person may lack capacity to make some decisions for themselves.

The person received care and support from staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

The person�s healthcare needs were assessed and they were supported to have regular access to health care services.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 October 2016

The service was caring.

The person told us they were happy with the care and support their family member received to help them maintain their independence.

The person was involved in making decisions for people about their care and staff took account of their individual needs and preferences.

The person was supported by staff who knew them well, respected their dignity and maintained their privacy.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 October 2016

The service was responsive.

The person was supported to remain independent and make their own decisions and staff respected this.

Care planning was person centred and focused on the person�s individual needs, well-being and aspirations.

The person�s views on the service were sought to gauge their satisfaction and make improvements

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 October 2016

The service was well led.

The registered manager encouraged a positive and open culture by being supportive to all staff and encouraging feedback.

The person was supported and cared for by staff who felt supported by an approachable manager.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service for the person.