• Care Home
  • Care home

The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

31 Parkstone Lane, Plympton, Plymouth, Devon, PL7 4DX (01752) 344144

Provided and run by:
Durnford Society Limited (The)

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane, you can give feedback on this service.

26 May 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. 'Right support, right care, right culture' is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane is a residential care service that provides personal care and support for up to 4 adults with learning difficulties and or autism. At the time of our inspection 4 people were living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Right Support: People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The model of care at The Durnford Society maximised people's choice, control and independence. Staff were committed to supporting people in line with their preferences and supported people to receive their medicines safely and as prescribed. People were enabled to access health and social care support in the community.

Right Care: Risks associated with people's care were assessed and included in their support plans. Care records guided staff on the action they were to take to mitigate risks to people and themselves.

Right Culture: The registered manager and staff were clear about their aim of providing person-centred care. They had a good knowledge of the service and understood the needs of people they supported. Staff supported people to lead confident, inclusive and empowered lives.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 29 December 2017)

Why we inspected

We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services rated Good and Outstanding.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led which contain those requirements. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

2 December 2017

During a routine inspection

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 2 December 2017. We also visited the registered manager on the 8 December 2017 to look at additional records and gather further information.

The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane provides care and accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities. On the days of our inspection there were four people living in the service.

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 the 8 October 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

We met and spoke with all four people during our visit and observed the interaction between them and the staff. People were not able to fully verbalise their views and used other methods of communication, for example sign language and pictures.

A relative said: “Yes, very safe here. We visit every day and are very happy with the care they receive.” Staff said; “Absolutely safe” and another said; “Yes because we know people and they know us.”

People remained safe at the service. People had sufficient staff on duty to meet their needs. People were protected by safe recruitment procedures to help ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Staff confirmed there was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and additional staff were provided for activities and health appointments.

People’s risks were assessed, monitored and managed by staff to help ensure they remained safe. Risk assessments had been completed to enable people to retain as much independence as possible. People received their medicines safely by suitably trained staff.

People continued to receive care from staff who had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support them. Staff confirmed they had completed safeguarding training. All new staff completed the Care Certificate (a nationally recognised training course for staff working in care). One staff recently completing the Care Certificate said Equality and Diversity was discussed as part of that training.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s end of life wishes were not currently documented, however the provider had arranged end of life training for staff and was in discussion with relatives. People's healthcare needs were monitored by the staff and people had access to a variety of healthcare professionals.

People’s care and support was based on legislation and best practice guidelines, helping to ensure the best outcomes for people. People’s legal rights were up held and consent to care was sought. Care plans were person centred and held full details on how people’s needs were to be met, taking into account people preferences and wishes. Information included people’s previous history, any cultural, religious and spiritual needs. One professional said; “I feel Parkstone provides high quality care, they have a good keyworker system and each keyworker knew each resident well in providing person centred care.”

People were treated with patience, kindness and compassion by a staff team who valued them. The staff had built strong relationships with people. People's privacy and dignity was respected. People or their representatives, for example relatives, had been involved in decisions about the care and support people received.

The service remained responsive to people's individual needs and provided personalised care and support. People had complex communication needs and these were individually assessed and met. People were encouraged to make choices about their day to day lives. The provider had a complaints policy in place and the registered manager confirmed any complaints received would be fully investigated and responded to.

The service continued to be well led. People lived in a service where the registered manager’s values and vision were embedded into the service, staff and culture. Staff told us the registered manager was approachable and had an open door policy and made themselves available to people and staff.

People lived in a service where the registered manager’s values and vision were embedded into the service, staff and culture. Relatives, professionals and staff spoke positively about the registered manager and the company. The registered manager was committed and passionate about the service, including the people and staff, and the company they worked for. Staff also spoke passionately about the people they cared for and the respect they held for people.

People benefited from a registered manager who worked with external agencies in an open and transparent way and there were positive relationships fostered. A professional spoke well of the way the registered manager and staff worked with them. The registered manager kept their ongoing practice and learning up to date to help develop the team and drive improvement.

The registered manager and provider had monitoring systems which enabled them to identify good practices and areas of improvement.

People lived in a service which had been designed and adapted to meet their needs. The service was monitored by the registered manager and provider to help ensure its ongoing quality and safety. The provider’s governance framework, helped monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.

7 November 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 7 November 2015 and was unannounced. 31 Parkstone Lane provides care and accommodation for up to four people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection four people were living in the service.

The service did not have a registered manager. The previous registered manager left two weeks ago. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Registered providers 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. However the home’s manager had sent the application form in to apply to register with CQC.

We met and spoke to all four people during our visit. People were not able to fully verbalise their views and used other methods of communication, for example pictures and symbols. We therefore spent time observing people. A relative commented; “Absolutely fine with everything.”

People’s mental capacity was assessed which meant care being provided by staff was in line with people’s wishes. Staff understood their role with regards to ensuring people’s human rights and legal rights were respected. For example, the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were understood by staff. Staff had undertaken safeguarding training and had a good knowledge of what constituted abuse and how to report any concerns. Staff described what action they would take to protect people against harm and were confident any incidents or allegations would be fully investigated.

People’s medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and received them on time. Staff were trained and understood what the medicines were for. They understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines. People were supported to maintain good health through regular access to health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapists.

People had access to healthcare professionals to make sure they received appropriate treatment to meet their health care needs such as epilepsy nurses. Staff acted on the information given to them by professionals to ensure people received the care they needed to remain safe. One relative described the service as “brilliant” when their relative had been unwell.

People were observed to be happy with the staff supporting them. Care records were detailed and personalised to meet each person’s needs. Staff understood people’s individual needs and responded quickly when a person required assistance. People and / or their relatives were involved as much as possible with their care records to say how they liked to be supported. People were offered choice and their preferences were respected.

People living in the service could be at risk due to their individual needs and additional support was offered when visiting the community. People’s risks were well managed and documented. People were monitored when required to help ensure they remained safe. People lived active lives and were supported to sample a range of activities.

People enjoyed the meals offered and they had access to snacks and drinks at all times. People were involved in planning menus, food shopping and preparing meals and were encouraged to say if meals were not to their liking.

Staff said the manager was very supportive and approachable and worked in the home regularly. Staff talked positively about their roles. Comments included; “The staff team work well together-no bad apples here!”

People were protected by safe recruitment procedures. There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to support people safely and ensure everyone had opportunities to take part in activities. Staff received an induction programme. Staff had completed training and had the right skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place. Any significant events were appropriately recorded and analysed. Evaluations of incidents were used to help make improvements and ensure positive progress was made in the delivery of care and support provided by the home. Feedback was sought from relatives, professionals and staff.

14 January 2014

During a routine inspection

We saw that each individual had a lifestyle plan that clearly expressed their personal views of what was important to them. We observed staff speaking with people in a way that reflected those views and demonstrated a good understanding of people's choices and preferences. We saw that the staff treated people with consideration, involved them in all aspects of their care and treatment, and respected their privacy and dignity.

We found care was planned according to people's individual, assessed needs. We saw appropriate individual risk assessments were completed and regularly reviewed. External health professionals were consulted about people's care. Advocates were involved where necessary for people who were unable to fully express their own needs or wishes in order to protect their human rights.

The staff we met with were appropriately trained in order to carry out their role safely and deliver care and treatment that met people's needs. The staff had regular appraisals.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to train staff, administer and record medication.

Records were stored securely, located promptly and where required remained confidential.

22 December 2012

During a routine inspection

We met people who used services, talked with staff and checked the provider's records. We spoke to four relatives visiting the home. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service, because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not all able to tell us their experiences.

We saw that staff treated people with consideration and respect. For example, we saw that staff responded to people's needs to ensure that they were kept safe and informed about what was happening, such as telling people of our visit.

Care plans that we saw reflected people's health and social care needs and demonstrated that other health and social care professionals were involved.

We spoke with staff about their understanding of what constituted abuse and how to raise concerns. They demonstrated a good understanding of what kinds of things might constitute abuse, and knew where they should go to report any suspicions.

We saw and heard staff speak to people in a way that demonstrated a good understanding of people's choices and preferences. For example, offering a choice of drinks. We looked in detail at the care two people received. We spoke to staff about the care given, looked at records related to these two people, met with them, and observed staff working with them.

One relative said, 'We couldn't have picked a better home' and another said, 'My son is so happy here and receives the best care ever'.

14 December 2011

During a routine inspection

We spoke to a person's relatives during our visit and they said 'the service was 'terrific' and that the quality of support that people received was '150%'. We saw people that used the service express happiness with their daily lives when we visited the home.

All of the people that lived at the home had limited verbal communication and some people also displayed behaviours that challenged services. Therefore to find out how people's dignity and choices were respected we spent time observing how people were supported by the staff.

We saw that the staff spoke to people respectfully, using people's preferred names.

The staff delivered support with patience and care. We observed and heard that the staff had a detailed knowledge of the needs of the people that lived at the home. People were involved in the running of the home and were supported to take part in their daily activities.

We saw, heard and read about how people's personal care and health care needs were met and supported by the service. Most people's care documentation had been fully redeveloped and it was of good quality. Peoples complex and varied care was being delivered effectively and well.

We heard about people's daily activities, about how people that lived in the home went out to enjoy their community, and when people were at home what entertainments were available for them. The service had developed activities for each person so that people had fulfilling and active lifestyles.

The staff were receiving appropriate training and support from the provider. This training and support helped staff to deliver good quality care, safely.