You are here

Dove Court Care Home Outstanding

Reports


Inspection carried out on 4 March 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Dove Court Care Home is a residential care home that provides accommodation with personal care for up to 32 older people. 28 people lived there when we visited. The home provides accommodation over three floors and has a large conservatory overlooking the garden with sea views.

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff had received infection control training and followed up to date infection prevention and control guidance to help people stay safe. Staff used personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly and in accordance with current guidance to minimise cross infection risks to people.

Staff and people were regularly tested in line with the government's current testing programme. They supported people with social distancing and frequent handwashing to protect against Covid 19.

Staff used pocket sized symbol/cue cards to aid communication with people who were hard of hearing or struggled because of the use of face masks. During lockdown, staff assisted people to keep in touch with family and friends through telephone and video calls. To help people communicate with family members wearing face masks, staff taught people to learn sign language to say, 'I love you.' Plans were in place to support families to resume visits in a safe way from 8 March 2021.

People's physical and mental wellbeing was supported through exercise classes, games, quizzes and pamper sessions as well as live musical entertainment via video link. People who remained in their room had one to one support and social stimulation from key workers and an activity coordinator.

Staff worked well as a team and felt supported and valued. The provider and registered manager arranged thoughtful gifts such as hand cream, snacks and a personalised 'lockdown hero' medal to recognise their ongoing efforts to keep people safe during the Covid 19 pandemic.

The home was clean and well maintained. Cleaning records showed increased cleaning of frequent touch points such as door handles and light switches.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection carried out on 11 March 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

Dove Court Care Home is a residential care home that was providing personal care to 27 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

Dove Court Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Dove Court Care Home accommodates up to 32 people in one building.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

People’s experience of using this service:

Relatives we spoke with couldn’t praise the kindness of staff highly enough. They consistently told us the care staff provided was outstanding and they felt staff were ‘family’. The registered manager provided numerous examples of times when staff had gone above and beyond, including the support staff provided to one person with an item that provided them great comfort.

Staff promoted people’s dignity and privacy. Staff provided person-centred support by listening to people and engaging them at every opportunity.

People were encouraged to socialise, pursue their interests and hobbies and try new things in a wide variety of inspiring and innovative ways. There was a focus on wellbeing and having a sense of purpose. All staff involved ensured people had access to as many opportunities as possible to aid their physical and mental health well-being. Activities formed an extremely important part of people’s lives and had a positive impact on their wellbeing. Arrangements for work, are innovative, meet people’s individual needs, and follow best practice guidance so people can live as full a life as possible.

The registered manager led by example to ensure the culture of the service drove and improved high-quality, person centred care. They valued their staff and recognised the importance of their professional development.

The service’s vision and values centred around the people they supported. The organisation’s statement of purpose documented a philosophy of maximising people’s life choices, encouraging independence, inclusion and people having a sense of worth and value. Staff expressed a passion for providing high quality care. Our inspection found that the organisation’s philosophy was definitely embedded in Dove Court Care Home.

Relatives’ views were sought, and opportunities taken to improve the service. Staff were supervised, supported and clear about what was expected of them. Audits and checks were carried out, so any problem could be identified and rectified.

Recruitment, staffing, medicine management, infection control and upkeep of the premises protected people from unsafe situations and harm.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and discrimination. They knew to report any concerns and ensure action was taken. The registered manager worked with the local authority safeguarding adults’ team to protect people.

Staff were trained and supported to be skilled and efficient in their roles. They were very happy about the level of training and support they received and showed competence when supporting people.

The premises provided people with a variety of spaces for their use with relevant facilities to meet their needs. Bedrooms were very individual and age and gender appropriate.

Support plans were reviewed with the person when possible, staff who supported the person and family members. Staff looked to identify best practice and used this to people’s benefit. Staff worked with and took advice from health care professionals. People’s health care needs were met.

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.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated Outstanding;

Inspection carried out on 21 June 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 21 and 22 June 2016 and was unannounced. We had previously inspected the service in August 2014 and found no breaches of regulations in the standards inspected.

Dove Court is a 32 bed residential care home, 30 people lived there when we visited. It provides accommodation with personal care to older people but does not provide nursing care.

The service had a registered 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.

People consistently told us about the excellent care they received. People mattered, staff were patient, and they demonstrated empathy in their conversations with people and in how they spoke about them. The service had received numerous compliments and an award for their caring ethos.

Staff developed exceptionally positive caring and compassionate relationships with people. The ethos of the home was that of an extended family. People were treated with dignity and respect and staff were caring and compassionate towards them. Staff had signed up to the national ‘Dignity in care’ initiative and were committed to taking action, to uphold the ten good practice steps to demonstrate compassion and respect for people. Staff knew each person as an individual and what mattered to them. Consistently positive feedback from people and relatives meant Dove Court had received a top 20 care home award from the care homes association for the past two consecutive years. People having end of life care were kept peaceful, and pain free.

People, relatives and professionals consistently gave us positive feedback about how the service was personalised to meet people’s individual needs. Staff supported people with communication difficulties in innovative ways. Staff knew each person as an individual, their preferences and interests. The home had a wide range of activities suited to the individual needs of people which brought pleasure to their lives which enhanced people’s health and wellbeing. People were part of their local community and participated in local events. People’s wellbeing had improved because staff and volunteers had befriended and engaged with people in ways that prevented them becoming isolated. Comments included, “He is so happy now that he has people to talk to and activities to join in with” and “ She has a new lease for living which is so good to see.”

People experienced effective care and support that promoted their health and wellbeing from staff that had the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their role. People were supported by enough skilled staff so their care and support could be provided at a time and pace convenient for them. Each person’s needs were assessed and care records had personalised information about how to meet them. Care was focused on people’s wishes and preferences and people were supported to remain active and independent. People praised the quality of food, and were offered a well-balanced diet. Health and social care professionals gave us positive feedback about the care and support of people.

People were supported to express their views and were involved in decision making about their care and were offered day to day choices. Staff sought people’s consent for care and treatment and ensured they were supported to make as many decisions as possible. Staff confidently used the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Where people lacked capacity, capacity relatives, friends and relevant professionals were involved in best interest decision making.

People said they felt safe living at the home. Staff were aware of signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns; any concerns reported were investigated. A robust recr

Inspection carried out on 11 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of a single inspector. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we had inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking to people using the service, staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that the managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough for example the provider and Registered Manager asked for advance checks to be performed on all staff prior to an offer of employment being made.. No staff had been subject to a disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's healthcare needs were assessed with them but they were not always involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Some people said they had been involved in writing them and said that care plans reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, �The staff are very nice and help me a lot, I don�t know how I would have coped without them�. People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed bi-annual satisfaction surveys. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these had been addressed.

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities in the home. Most people enjoyed the entertainment and trips out. All people were offered the choice of outings but some declined.

The service responded well to peoples changing health care needs. The home had good working relationships with local GP's and district nursing teams and plans of care were well documented and person cantered.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No one we spoke to felt the need to make a complaint as they were very happy with the service they received. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with and found that the responses had been open, thorough and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people received the best care that could be provided.

The service had a quality assurance system that frequently asked for feedback from friends, family and people using the service to assess the quality of care being provided. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Inspection carried out on 11 April 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 28 people living at Dove Court when we visited. We spoke with 10 people to ask them about the care and treatment provided. One person said, �staff are very kind�, another person said, �you haven�t got to worry about a thing� and a third person said, �they look after me very well�. One person who was confined to their room because of ill health told us how much they appreciated regular visits by the activity co-ordinator who chats with them and listens to music with them. Everyone we spoke with praised the quality of food and choices available at the home.

We looked at the care records for three people who lived at the home. We spoke with nine staff and asked them about how various aspects of people�s care needs were met.

We found people experienced safe and appropriate care and were supported to keep healthy and well nourished. People were safe because their surroundings were adapted to provide safe access and suitable equipment was available meet individual people�s needs. We saw that people�s comments and complaints were listened to and acted on.

We found the home was compliant with the five essential standards we inspected.

Inspection carried out on 19 June 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We (The Care Quality Commission) carried out an unannounced visit to Dove Court on 19 June 2012. At our previous visit in January 2012, we identified some problems in relation to the care records, cleanliness of some bathroom areas and in quality monitoring systems. We followed these up at this visit and found that improvements had been made.

On the day we visited, there were 23 people living at the home, one of whom was in hospital. We spoke to 13 people about their experiences of living at the home and one relative who visited daily. We looked in detail at the care given to three people who lived in the home, we talked to them, looked at their care records and discussed with care workers how they met those people�s needs. We spoke to seven staff in total, four care workers, kitchen and domestic staff and the general manager.

One person said �I feel safe and happy here�, another said �I am being well looked after�. A third person who had previously lived in another home commented �as homes go, you couldn�t improve on it�. One member of staff we spoke to said �Dove Court is the best home I�ve worked in�, another said there was �good team work and a friendly atmosphere� in the home.

People we spoke with confirmed that care workers involved them in making decisions about their care and respected their wishes. We observed that care workers treated people with dignity and respect.

We looked at systems for recruiting staff and found that all the required checks were made to ensure vulnerable people were protected from unsuitable workers.

The provider was compliant with the five essential standards of quality and care we inspected.

Inspection carried out on 10 January 2012

During a routine inspection

We (The Care Quality Commission) carried out an unannounced visit to Dove Court on 10 January 2012. On the day we visited, there were 29 people living at the home. We spoke to ten people who lived there about their experiences of living at the home, one person we met was unable to give us feedback because of communication difficulties but we observed staff interactions with them. We looked in detail at the care of three people who lived at the home, talked to those people, looked at their care records and discussed with care workers how they met those people�s needs. We spoke to eight staff in total, four care workers, two members of the kitchen and domestic staff, the registered manager, general manager and the provider.

We found that people were offered choices and were involved in decisions about their care and their privacy and dignity is respected. People we spoke with confirmed that care workers involved them in discussions about their care and respected their wishes. We observed that care workers respected people�s privacy and people told us they were given choices about food and how they spend their time. Group activities were provided for those who chose to participate in them. Individual activities were also provided to meet the needs and preferences of people confined to their rooms.

We identified some problems in relation to the quality and consistency of care records kept. For example, we found that one person admitted two and a half weeks previously did not have any care plans about their care needs. A second person had no care plan written about the need to encourage them to drink fluids regularly and monitor their fluid intake and their fluid chart and other daily records seen were poorly maintained which put them at risk of dehydration. We found other inconsistencies in the quality of daily record keeping, which put people at increased risk of not having their care needs met.

People who lived at Dove Court were protected from abuse because care workers were knowledgeable about the signs of abuse and knew the appropriate steps to take in response to suspected abuse. The systems for managing monies safeguarded people from financial abuse.

The communal areas and furniture seen around the home were clean and the home smelt fresh and odour free in all areas. However, there were inadequate systems for preventing the spread of infection because equipment is not cleaned adequately and access to hand washing facilities was limited in some areas of the home.

People we spoke to thought staff were appropriately trained for the work they do. Good opportunities for training and development were seen for care workers. They have regular training updates and were supported by an annual appraisal and by regular supervision.

The service has a range of systems in place to monitor quality and check that the health, welfare and safety needs of people who receive care. However, the quality of care records and infection control suggested the monitoring of these areas is inadequate and needs improvement.