Archived: Denis Taylor House Residential Home

22 Salutary Mount, Fore Street, Heavitree, Exeter, EX1 2QE (01392) 686482

Provided and run by:
Guinness Care and Support Limited

All Inspections

3 May 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We (the Care Quality Commission) visited Denis Taylor House on 3 May 2012 to check on previous compliance actions issued in September 2011 relating to best interest decision making and care planning information and concerns that we had received.We found that all the standards that we inspected were now met.

The inspection was unannounced and took place over five hours. We spent all of our time in communal areas, apart from when people showed us their rooms and we were introduced to everybody living at the service. There were eight people living at the home at the time of the inspection and three vacancies.

We met all of the eight people living at the home, two relatives/friend spoke with the manager, a care home senior manager for Guinness, two staff on duty and observed the practice of staff members. We also looked at a variety of records, including care plans for people using the service, and we visited all areas of the home.

The majority of people living at the service were not able to comment directly ontheir care so we spent time in communal areas to help us make a judgement about people's experiences of using the service. We used a tool called SOFI 2 (Short Observational Framework for Inspection).

We saw that staff treated people with consideration and respect. Staff were able to

recognise when people wanted staff assistance, physical reassurance and when they wanted their own space. Staff were aware of how individuals communicated and this information was reflected in their personal care plans.

Staff told us about and demonstrated how they respected people's dignity.

We saw how staff were observant to people's changing moods and responded

appropriately. Throughout the inspection, we observed that staff communicated

appropriately with people, and the relationships between staff and people in the home

were good. We heard examples of how staff acted as advocates for people placing people at the heart of decision making.

Staff provided support in a caring manner making sure that people were comfortable and content, checking on people's wellbeing regularly. Each person seemed relaxed in their surroundings and recognised their own room and personal belongings.

Staff told us that people were able to make their views known about how they spent their time and we saw that this was the case. There were also meetings to try and gather the views of people living at Denis Taylor House by talking with people who were important to them and with health professionals involved in their care.

Staff were well trained and knowledgeable about people's needs and how to meet them. We saw that care records were detailed and that staff were caring for people in a person centred way.

18 August 2011

During a routine inspection

During our unannounced visit to Denis Taylor House we talked to two people who lived in the home and observed other people interacting with staff in a positive way. We were not able to communicate effectively with other people due to their specific communication needs. People told us they felt safe living in the home, liked the food and received the care and support they needed at the times, and in the way, they requested. However care/support plans were not always clear about people's care needs, confidential information was not always recorded in the correct place, and some records were undated.

People living in the home were confident that any concerns or complaints they had would be dealt with satisfactorily by the staff team. Staff treated people in a friendly and respectful way and were attentive and quick to recognise when people needed assistance.

The preferences and choices of people who lived in the home were supported and enabled by attentive staff. However those acting on behalf of people living in the home, such as relatives and advocates, were not always involved in making decisions about the care of people who lacked the mental capacity to make their own decisions. This means there was no proper consultation and agreement that such decisions were in the person's best interests.