You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

We inspected this service on 9 May 2017. The inspection was unannounced. DRS Care Home is a residential home providing care for up to four people with either a learning disability or mental health need. At the time of the inspection all four people had a learning disability and had very limited or no verbal communication.

The service is located in a terraced house, on two floors with access to an outside area at the back. There were two ‘move on’ supported living units located in the garden area. Support to the people living in these is provided by another DRS scheme locally. This inspection relates to the residential care service only.

At our last inspection in January 2016 the service was meeting all of the regulations, but had an overall rating of Requires Improvement.

DRS Care Home had a registered manager at the service. 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.

We saw staff were kind and caring to people living at the service, and this was confirmed by family members.

The staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people’s care needs, significant people and events in their lives, and their daily routines and preferences. They also understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures and could explain how they would protect people if they had any concerns.

Care plans were up to date and showed people’s strengths as well as needs. They were person centred and gave detailed information on how exactly to support people. Risk assessments were in place and covered the majority of risks identified.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff to care for the number of people with complex needs in the home. Staff told us they were well supported by the registered manager and could contribute their views to the way in which care was provided and the service was run. We could see regular supervision and training took place.

Safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.

Medicines were stored and managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and on time.

A health and social care colleague told us the service worked closely with them to meet people’s needs and manage their behaviours.

People participated in a range of activities in the local community.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that as far as possible people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service was working within the principles of the MCA 2005 and DoLS.

The registered manager and deputy manager carried out quality assurance processes to ensure people received a good service and they showed they were continually working to improve the service.

The service was clean throughout, and well maintained. Essential services, for example, gas, electricity and fire safety equipment were regularly maintained. Fire drills took place regularly.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was safe. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were safely stored and managed.

Risk assessments were in place for the majority of risks identified.

The premises were clean and food was stored safely and hygienically

Effective

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was effective. Staff had received training in key areas and supervision took place regularly with staff.

Staff understood the importance of consent and there was relevant documentation in place for people deprived of their liberty.

People were supported to eat healthily, and there was a choice of meals.

The service worked in partnership with local health professionals to meet people’s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was caring. We saw staff were kind and caring and family members confirmed this. Staff knew people’s daily routines and preferences and showed them dignity and respect.

People were encouraged to be as independent as possible and their abilities and strengths were documented in care plans.

People’s cultural needs were met.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was responsive. Care plans were comprehensive, up to date, and were person centred.

People were supported to take part in activities in the local community.

People knew how to make a complaint although there were no complaints formally logged in the last 12 months.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 June 2017

The service was well led. The registered manager provided good leadership and involved staff in the running of the service.

There were quality assurance processes in many key areas and essential services were safely maintained.