You are here

Archived: Devonshire Manor

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 8 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcome we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedure which provided guidance to staff on what to do should they suspect abuse. Staff we spoke to had a good understanding of the types of abuse and the action to take in order to protect people from risk. Due to a recent safeguarding notification we checked the how the provider protected people from the risk of financial abuse. We saw that suitable safeguards and financial checks were in place to protect people’s belongings and personal allowances.

Is the service effective?

The two people and three relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided. One person said “Staff do their best for us. Staff come when I need help and I’m very well treated”. Relative comments included; “Care is good, staff go out of their way to help. They take their time, they are as good as gold” and “Staff talk to them. Staff know them well”. We spoke with two care staff. Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and spoke fondly of the people they looked after.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with two people who lived at the home and three relatives. People said they were treated with dignity and respect and staff were nice. Relatives said they felt involved in people’s care and that staff kept them fully informed. Comments included “Staff really made them welcome”; “I can pick up the phone and speak to staff, they go out of their way to help” and “You get very good feedback from staff”. We observed staff supporting people throughout the day and saw they were kind and attentive and supported people at their own pace.

Is the service responsive?

The two people and three relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided. We saw that care records were person centred and designed to outline people’s needs. The care records we looked at however did not adequately assess people's risks and lacked sufficient detail in some areas. We also found appropriate action had not been taken in relation to people’s falls. Risk assessments falls had not been reviewed and referrals for specialist advice for example from the falls prevention team were not made. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

Is the service effective?

The two people and three relatives we spoke with told us they were happy with the care provided. One person said “Staff do their best for us. Staff come when I need help and I’m very well treated”. Relative comments included; “Care is good, staff go out of their way to help. They take their time, they are as good as gold” and “Staff talk to them. Staff know them well”. We spoke with two care staff. Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs and spoke fondly of the people they looked after.

Is the service well led?

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time. A new manager was appointed to manage the home in October 2013. We saw that the new manager had commenced a number of audits but that they were not yet fully established or used to effectively identify and monitor the health and safety risks posed to people who lived at the home. A compliance action has been set in relation to this and the provider must tell us how they plan to improve.

Inspection carried out on 31 May 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke to three people who lived at the home, two relatives and two visitors. People told us they were well looked after. They said:

"It's very good"

“Excellent”

"Get on well with them [no quibbles at all]"

"Staff are very kind to her [really could not fault one thing]”

We saw people’s needs were assessed and regularly reviewed. Care records were personalised, contained information about individual preferences and promoted the person’s independence where possible.

We saw in care records that the home supported each person's ability to consent or make decisions throughout their life at the home and at the end of life. Where people had limited mental capacity, care plans detailed how to communicate with people so they were able to be involved in decisions about their day to day care.

We reviewed three staff files. We saw evidence that staff were appropriately supported and trained to care for people. We observed people were well cared for and treated kindly. Staff we spoke with talked about the people they cared for warmly and with respect.

We looked at the provider's safeguarding arrangements. We saw the provider had local safeguarding and whistleblowing policies and that all staff had received training in how to identify and respond to signs of abuse.

We saw the provider undertook a range of quality audits to check and monitor the quality of the service provided. We examined the provider's recent survey of people's views and opinions. The feedback received about the service was very positive.

Inspection carried out on 14 August 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three relatives during our visit who all spoke highly of the care received by their loved ones. One person described it as "perfect" and we were told how their relative had settled well, had put on weight and that their health and well-being had improved since moving to the home.

Three people living in the home told us that they felt safe living there, and two people told us that staff were wonderful.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)