Dunwood Manor Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were protected from the risk of abuse. Policies and procedures and staff training supported this. Staff understood their safeguarding reporting and investigation responsibilities. We observed sufficient staffing in place throughout the inspection and found staff to be appropriately skilled. This was confirmed by people, relatives, and staff feedback.

This service scored 59 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People benefited from staff that understood and were confident about using the safeguarding and whistleblowing procedure. Staff at all levels were knowledgeable about what may constitute abuse. Training records showed 92 % of staff were up to date on safeguarding training. Leaders understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and told us how they put this into practice.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe and were happy with the staff. People felt comfortable about raising concerns as staff were approachable. One person said, “It’s amazing, the level of service. You get lots of help. The staff are very competent.” A relative told us, absolutely they are safe they are well looked after. Another relative said, “He has constant 24 hour care. He’s well looked after. He’s better here than he was at home.”

There were effective systems, processes and practices to ensure people were safe from the risk of harm and abuse. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. At the time of our onsite inspection the provider was in the process of investigating various concerns. We found appropriate action had been taken and lessons were learned. Referrals to the relevant organisation such as the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) and the local authority had been made

Most observations we observed were positive. Observations included people being reminded to use their frame, safe moving and handling assistance, care plan reviews and visits from external professionals. However, we did observe one person being assisted to eat too quickly. We spoke to the provider about our observations who assured us they would check the next meal time experience to make improvements.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided and felt any risks were identified. People and their relatives were appropriately engaged in assessing, planning and agreeing the care and support they received.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s needs and the risk associated with their care. Staff were aware of and knew where to find information about people's risks.

People told and they were involved in their pre admission assessment and any ongoing care plan reviews. Relatives, including relatives holding power of attorney (POA) were also involved and were provided regular opportunity to share their views and feedback. Care plans contained assessments to identify risks and keep people safe. As part of an action plan the provider had identified looking at people’s meal times to improve the experience for people.

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Overall staff reported appropriate staffing levels. Staff were provided with supervisions (one to one meetings) with their line manager. These provided an opportunity for the manager to provide staff with feedback on their performance, identify any concerns, offer support, assurances and learning opportunities to help them develop. Staff felt supported by training and told us training was a mixture of face to face and on line training including, manual handling, infection control, fire safety, safeguarding and first aid. We spoke to the registered manager about staff recruitment and staff that were employed under the sponsorship scheme. The provider and registered manager were able to tell us how they recruited staff safely and how they many vacancies were needed. At present these were being covered by either agency staff or permanent staff working overtime.

We observed sufficient staffing in place throughout the inspection and found staff to be appropriately skilled. We observed positive interactions between people and staff.

During this inspection we did not review staff recruitment files but did speak to the registered manager about staff recruitment and staff that were employed under the sponsorship scheme. These staff had been properly and legally assessed as eligible to work in the UK. The provider had systems in place to review staffing levels. The registered manager considered cultural, and skill set when matching staff to people’s needs. The registered nurses had undertaken training to support them to keep their clinical skills up to date.

People reported that overall, there were usually enough staff, that knew them well and were available to meet their needs. One person said, “There’s an awful lot of staff.” People told us they felt the staff had the skills to support them safely and that staff arrived quickly when needed. A relative told us that staff were very willing and patient.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.