The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Dudley House Care Home

Dudley House, The Grove, Isleworth, Middlesex, TW7 4JF (020) 8847 5472

Provided and run by:
Dudley House Care Home Limited

All Inspections

15 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people using the service, four members of staff, the home's manager and a visiting NHS professional. Most people told us they felt well cared for in the home and staff were kind and helpful. One person said '(my relative is fine, she's well looked after.' Another person said 'most of the staff are excellent, I feel very well looked after.'

People who use the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment. However, there was a need to update the service's Statement of Purpose to accurately describe the services offered in the home.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We saw that people's needs were assessed and recorded and they, or their representatives, were involved in reviewing and updating the care plan and risk assessments. However, some people did not always receive the care and support they needed.

The provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. People's bedrooms were well decorated and people were supported to bring their personal possessions into the home with them.

Appropriate checks were undertaken before staff began work and staff were trained to care for people safely.

The provider had arrangements to monitor standards of care and treatment and took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.

5 December 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During the inspection we talked with five people using the service and six members of staff to get their views about the services that were provided in the home.

During our inspection on 25 July 2012 a number of shortfalls were identified which showed that people were at risk of receiving unsafe and inappropriate care. We asked the provider to improve and they submitted an action plan to address the areas where the service was not complying with essential standards of quality and safety.

At this inspection we found that the home had a new management team. They were able to demonstrate that the areas we had previously identified as requiring improvement, had been improved or were in the process of being improved. As a result we judged that the provider was compliant with the essential standards of quality and safety where we had previously identified shortfalls.

25 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six people using the service, eight members of staff and two members of the management team to get information about the quality of services provided in the home.

All people who spoke with us said staff involved them in the decisions regarding their care, treatment and support. Many said their relatives had seen their care records and staff had discussed their care with them when they started to use the service. People's privacy and dignity was respected but we found a few instances when people might not have been treated with as much dignity and respect as was possible. Staff did not always engage positively with people when giving them their breakfast or protective aprons to protect their clothes. The aprons were placed around some people without much interaction.

While the consent of people who could make decisions was generally sought, it was not clear how decisions were made for people who could not make the decisions themselves, so that their best interests were safeguarded. One person who could not express themselves was out of bed at 6am and was supported with a shower by staff. We could not see any information in their care records that they had consented, or that it was their choice to get up at 6am and to have a shower. We also did not see that their relatives were involved in making this decision in their best interests.

We found that it was not clear how decisions around the resuscitation status and end of life care of people were made, so that these reflected people's instructions and wishes as well as the legal framework around consent.

People who could give us feedback told us they were cared for and supported appropriately. They all said staff were kind to them. One person said 'I have never been in a place where everybody is nice'. We however found that the planning did not always match the delivery of care which could put people at risks of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care.

Some issues were noted with the management of medicines which in isolation might not be too serious, but which in combination showed that the medicines management system was not as effective as it could have been.

9 December 2010

During a routine inspection

People told us that they receive enough information about the type of service that the home provides for them to decide if they would like to live in the home. They said that they feel involved in their care and that staff seek their permission before delivering care and support. They added that they have the opportunity to make choices in their daily lives such as choosing their meals, clothes or whether to take part in recreational and social activities.

The people living in the home trusted that the manager, the nurses and the care workers would provide a good standard of care and that if necessary referrals would be made to the GP and other healthcare professionals to ensure their health and welfare.

People knew that they could approach the management of the home if they had any concerns and that these would be taken seriously and addressed.

Feedback suggests that people using the service were pleased with the quality of the environment and the fixtures and fittings that the home provides in the bedrooms of people or in the communal areas. They were also satisfied with the standard of cleanliness.