You are here

Archived: Donness Nursing Home Inadequate

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 12 August 2014
Date of Publication: 2 September 2014
Inspection Report published 02 September 2014 PDF

Overview

Inspection carried out on 12 August 2014

During a routine inspection

Our inspection team was made up of an inspector who spent one day at Donness Nursing Home. We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service caring?

Is the service effective?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

On the day of our inspection there were 27 people living at Donness Nursing Home. The summary is based on conversations with three people using the service, five staff supporting them, two people�s families, two health care professionals, the registered manager (known as matron), observation and records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because staff had a good understanding of people's needs and ensured those needs were met. This included close monitoring of diet, blood sugar levels, falls and psychological needs. Advice was sought appropriately and within a reasonable timescale. Necessary equipment was provided. People who had been admitted with pressure sores or whose diet was a concern were making considerable improvement.

Care plans included considerations of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and staff demonstrated an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). People were protected through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which were properly managed so as to protect people from being deprived of their liberty unlawfully. The registered manager had taken advice about an application under DoLS the day before our visit.

The service was safe because checks were completed prior to new staff starting work at the home. This ensured those staff members were suitable to work in a care home environment. There were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs in a safe way but this was marginal some nights whilst an additional night care worker was being employed.

The service would be safer if all accidents were better recorded and investigated in a timely manner.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring because people�s individual needs were understood and met. For example, one person had decided they wanted to stay in bed permanently. They were made comfortable and protected from risks from inactivity. They appeared happy and settled when we visited them.

Staff were attentive to people�s needs and dignity. We saw care workers act quickly when one person started removing their clothes. Other care workers were discreetly monitoring a person�s diet. That person�s family told us �They care. They go beyond the basic needs. It�s about mum as a person�.

We heard and saw staff interact with people in an unhurried and respectful way. One person told us �Most staff are caring�.

The service was caring because people�s well-being was seen as the priority. People appeared to be comfortable and relaxed at the home.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective because people�s health and welfare were promoted. People received an assessment of their needs prior to admission. Risks were assessed and risk management planned. The person�s care plan was then completed and updated as the person settled into the home. The care plans were reviewed monthly following discussion with the person and/or their family representatives and health professionals. One person�s family told us "I feel the staff are geared to his needs".

Health professionals had no concerns about the standards of care provided.

People received a nutritious diet which they told us they were happy with. Comments included "Food is pretty good" and "Not too bad. Quite good".

Is the home responsive?

The registered manager (matron) was clearly well known to people and their families who felt they were able to take any issues to them, the office manager and the staff. The home also sought staff and people�s views through an annual survey of opinion.

The home had responded to changes in people�s needs and circumstances. We saw how people�s needs were reviewed and their plan of care amended where necessary. We saw how people�s health had improved since admission to the home.

Is the home well-led?

The home was well-led because the service was monitored. For example, we saw how a missing record had been highlighted as an issue. People�s views were sought and audits undertaken. There were efficient arrangements for communication between the registered manager (matron), office manager, nursing, care and support staff at the home. However, we saw matron did not always act quickly enough and one staff said �or show us that she has acted�.

We saw the registered manager was �very approachable� and people using the service, their families, health professionals and some staff wanted to tell us this. However, some staff members did not take issues they had to the manager.

The home was well-led because it ran effectively and there were contingency plans in place for any foreseeable emergency.