You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 August 2016

This inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 4 May 2016. We had previously visited on 25 And 26 November 2014 and rated the service as ‘requires improvement’. At this inspection we found that the provider and manager had looked at the detail of our report and had indeed responded positively to our findings and addressed those areas for improvement. The previous report did not find breaches in regulation.

The New Deanery provides accommodation and personal care for up to 93 people. Some of whom have a degree of living with dementia and some people who have a physical disability. At the time of our visit 39 people resided at the service. This location is required to have a registered manager and one was in place. They were present through the whole inspection and were enthusiastic to share developments with our team. 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 found a care service that was fully compliant with regulations. It was extremely well led. The vision and values were well known by everyone. Staff were enthusiastic about their areas of responsibility and keen to share with the inspector how much they enjoyed their job. The management oversight was thorough and effective so that people were as safe as they could be.

People and their families experienced an inclusive service that was responsive to ideas and dealt with complaints well to peoples satisfaction. Management was open and actively listened to people through their quality assurance processes.

People told us that staff were caring and knew their individual needs. People felt that staff were compassionate and were able to develop meaningful relationships. Relatives told us they were informed and were able to develop trust in the staff. People told us that any concern was readily addressed. People had good interesting opportunities about how they spent their day. The catering was responsive to individual preferences and needs with care and attention paid to presentation of food and peoples individual needs such as a soft diet.

There were sufficient numbers of staff so that people were given the time and attention that they needed. People told us that they were never rushed. Our observations were that staff were responsive to people’s needs and readily available at all times.

Staff were well trained and had good support in place. The induction that staff received was thorough and comprehensive and meant that staff at the end of induction were capable of performing their role to a good standard as confirmed in their weekly review and confirmation in post. Staff were provided with sufficient information in care plans to offer a tailor made service for people. Care plans were developed with people, individualised and easily accessible. Care and risk assessments were regularly reviewed and peoples capacity and ability to make decisions was well managed.

Inspection areas



Updated 24 August 2016

The service was safe.

The arrangements in place to manage people’s medicines were consistently safe.

Staff had been trained to recognise and respond to any actual or potential abuse.

Where risks to people had been identified through assessments these had been clearly documented and followed by staff to ensure risks were managed.

There were sufficient numbers of skilled staff to meet people’s needs. People experienced no delays when calling for staff assistance.



Updated 24 August 2016

The service was effective.

People received treatment and support from staff who had the specialist skills to meet their needs. Staff were supported to develop their knowledge and skills via regular supervision and appraisal.

Staff understood the need to gain people’s consent and worked collaboratively with other health care professionals to ensure people’s rights were protected.

People had access to dietary advice if needed. Appealing nourishing food was available for everyone based upon preference and need. People received support to manage their health and were registered with their own GP.



Updated 24 August 2016

The service was caring.

People’s dignity and privacy was respected. Staff were compassionate and caring and people felt staff listened to and involved them.

People were actively involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. People valued the meaningful relationships that were developed with staff.



Updated 24 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People had a personalised plan. The service was flexible and supported people to lead individualised lives. There were many opportunities to socialise and participate in activities.

People received information on how to raise concerns and complaints. The provider saw this as an opportunity to develop and learn how better to support people.



Updated 24 August 2016

The service was well-led.

The service promoted a positive and open culture and opportunities for people to comment and influence the quality of the service provided.

There was effective leadership and a clear strategy for the continued development of the service.

The provider worked with other professionals and had effective clinical governance in place, and used current guidance to measure and review the delivery of the service for the benefit of people at the service.