Background to this inspection
Updated
14 November 2017
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 was a comprehensive inspection.
This inspection took place on 15 and 19 September 2017 and was announced. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because it is small and we needed to be sure that they would be in.
One inspector carried out this inspection.
We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. We also contacted the local authority commissioners for the service and the clinical commission group (CCG).
The provider completed a provider information return (PIR) prior to the inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.
People had limited communication which meant they were unable to tell us about their experiences of living at the service. We spoke with five relatives. We also spoke with the registered manager, two support workers and an apprentice. We looked at the care records for three people who used the service, medicines records for people using the service and recruitment records for five staff. We also looked at a range of records related to the quality, management and safety of the service.
Updated
14 November 2017
Doric View is a purpose built bungalow providing short break accommodation for people who require personal care. The service can accommodate up to seven people. The number of people staying at the service at any one time varies due to the short term nature of the service.
At the last inspection in April 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Relatives told us they happy with their family member’s care and support. They also told us staff members were kind and caring towards their family member. Both relatives and staff said they felt the service was safe. From speaking with staff and our own observations we concluded there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
Staff showed a good understanding of safeguarding and were aware of the provider’s whistle blowing procedure. Staff also knew the process for reporting concerns and said they would not hesitate to raise concerns if required.
There were effective recruitment procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service.
Medicines were managed safely. Only trained staff administered people’s medicines. We found one person’s medicines had not been administered in line with the prescriber’s guidance. However, this had only just occurred at the time of our inspection and records had not yet been audited. The provider immediately invoked the medicines error procedure and commenced a full investigation.
The provider carried out regular health and safety checks. Procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.
Staff were well supported and received the training they needed.
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 were supported to meet their nutritional needs.
People’s needs had been assessed both before and after they started using the service. This information was used to develop personalised care plans. These were reviewed so that they reflected people’s current needs.
People had opportunities to participate in their preferred activities, such as outings, jigsaws, crafts, painting and DVDs.
Although relatives gave positive feedback about their family member’s care, they also knew how to raise concerns if required.
The service had a registered manager. Relatives and staff said the registered manager was approachable and supportive.
Staff had opportunities to provide feedback about the service, such as one to one supervision and staff meetings.
The provider carried out a range of internal and external quality assurance checks to ensure people received good care.