We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dormy Way 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 Dormy Way, you can give feedback on this service.
Dormy Way is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Dormy Way is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to four people and predominantly supports people living with a learning disability.
At the time of the inspection there were four people living at the service. Best practice guidelines recommend supporting people living with a learning disability in settings that accommodate less than six people. The service model at Dormy Way was aligned to the principles set out in Registering the Right Support. Outcomes for people using the service, reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support including; choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People's support was focused on them having as many opportunities as possible, to have new experiences and to maintain their skills and independence.
People’s experience of using this service:
Some people living at Dormy Way had limited ability to have verbal conversations with us. However, when asked if they liked living at the home, people responded with a smile or said, “Yes.”
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and they had been recruited safely. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to carry out their role effectively.
Individual and environmental risks to people had been assessed and were monitored regularly to keep people safe. The service was clean, well maintained and procedures were in place to protect people from the risk of infection.
Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. Staff had developed positive relationships with people and their relatives and knew what was important to them.
People had access to health and social care professionals where required and staff worked together co-operatively and efficiently.
People had clear, detailed and person-centred care plans, which guided staff on the most appropriate way to support them.
People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Information was available in a format they could understand.
The registered manager sought feedback about the service from people, their relatives and staff, and this information was used to improve the service.
The registered manager and provider carried out regular checks on the quality and safety
of the service.
The service met the characteristics of Good in all areas. More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection:
The service was rated as Good at the last full comprehensive inspection, the report for which was published on 24 January 2017.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous inspection rating.
Follow up:
There is no required follow up to this inspection. However, we will continue to monitor the service and will inspect the service again based on the information we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
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.
People told us they felt safe with staff. Relatives had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm.
Potential risks to people had been identified and assessed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and safe recruitment practices were followed. Medicines were managed safely.
Staff had received all essential training and there were opportunities for them to study for additional qualifications. All staff training was up-to-date. Team meetings were held and staff had regular communication with each other at handover meetings which took place between each shift.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Three people living at the home who were currently subject to DoLS. We found the manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of DoLS. People were generally able to make day to day decisions for themselves. The manager and staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) regarding best interests decisions should anyone be deemed to lack capacity.
People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare professionals. People’s rooms were decorated in line with their personal preferences.
Staff knew people well and positive, caring relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and these were communicated to staff in a variety of ways – verbally, through physical gestures or body language. People were involved in decisions about their care as much as they were able. Their privacy and dignity were respected and promoted. Staff understood how to care for people in a sensitive way.
Care plans provided information about people in a person-centred way. People’s personal histories had been recorded and their preferences, likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. There was a variety of activities and outings on offer which people could choose to do. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s complaints procedure.
Weekly and monthly checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service provided. There were regular staff meetings and feedback was sought on the quality of the service provided. People and staff were able to influence the running of the service and make comments and suggestions about any changes. Regular one to one meetings with staff and people took place. These meetings enabled the registered manager and provider to monitor if people’s needs were being met.
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We were only able to speak to one person. They told us that they were happy with the care that was provided by the home.
People who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. We spoke to two members of staff. They were able to tell us about the different types of abuse and how to identify if someone had been abused.
People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard. We spoke to two staff members who told us that they felt supported and enjoyed their work. One staff member told us they "Love it. Like working with a team". Another staff member told us "Love it. Feel supported".
There was an effective complaints system available. A staff member told us "All complaints are taken seriously. We haven't had any for a long time".
One person who used the service told us that they enjoyed living at the home and they liked their bedrooms. They also said that they liked the staff working there, and they felt safe living there. They had no complaints.
We saw that people's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We spoke to staff and reviewed records which showed us that people were protected from abuse.
Staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting. The provider may like to note that staff commented that they were concerned by the staffing levels during the night due to one person's nocturnal epilepsy which was impacting on other people's sleep.
The Provider had effective systems in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.