Background to this inspection
Updated
23 December 2015
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
This unannounced inspection took place over two days on the 9 and 10 October 2014. Our team consisted of two inspectors, an ‘expert-by-experience’ (ExE) and a specialist advisor who had professional experience of working with people with dementia. The ExE in our team also had personal experience of caring for a relative with dementia.
Prior to our inspection, we reviewed information we held about the provider including, for example, statutory notifications that they had sent us. A statutory notification is information about incidents in the home that the provider is legally required to inform us about, such as an accidental injury requiring treatment from a healthcare professional in order to prevent prolonged pain, or any abuse or allegation of abuse.
We had asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) before our inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well, and includes details of any improvements they plan to make. They did not return a PIR and we took this into account when we made the judgements in this report.
During this inspection we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us because their dementia had impaired their ability to communicate verbally. We also undertook general observations in the communal areas within the home. We viewed five bedrooms with the permission of each person.
We spoke with five persons who used the service, four visitors to the home including two healthcare professionals and two relatives. We also spoke with six staff including the registered manager, four care staff and the cook.
We reviewed the care records of five people who used the service and six staff recruitments files. We also reviewed the records relating to the management of the home and the quality assurance of the service provided.
We looked at the overall appearance of the physical environment and took into account people’s experience of using the facilities such as whether they felt physically comfortable in the home and liked their surroundings.
Updated
23 December 2015
This unannounced inspection took place over two days on the 9 and 10 October 2014. Da-Mar provides accommodation and personal care for up to 29 older people. There were 14 people in residence during this inspection, the majority of whom had a range of dementia care needs.
At the time of this inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.
At the last inspection on 22 May 2014 we asked the provider to take action to improve the management of day-to-day risks so that people received the safe care they needed, and to improve how agency staff used to cover staff sickness were briefed on people’s needs. We received an action plan from the provider and this has been completed.
People said they felt safe at Da-Mar. However, we found that people’s safety could be further enhanced by a more robust analysis of incident patterns, such as falls, so that where necessary more timely preventative measures could be taken to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.
People said they were happy at the home and received the care they needed. Staff were appropriately recruited, with all the necessary checks carried out and their induction training completed before they were tasked to carry out their duties. However, some training for staff who had been employed for over 12 months should be refreshed at more timely intervals so that best practice was sustained.
Staff knew their responsibilities, were kind to people and there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. However, although people said they had enough to eat and drinks, some additional care was needed to ensure that people consistently drank enough throughout the day.
People said their privacy and dignity was respected but staff needed to be mindful of unintentionally compromising respect for people by referring to them as ‘love’ or ‘dear’ instead of their preferred name.
People, including relatives and other visitors to the home such as healthcare professionals said the manager and staff were approachable, friendly, and attentive. However, arrangements for involving people or their representatives in making decisions about the running of the home needed to be strengthened.
People said they were content with their physical surroundings and said they were comfortable. The communal areas were clean and functional but lacked visually imaginative touches that would have enhanced the appearance of the living environment. One visitor commented that the home was “rather drab and in need of a facelift”.