We carried out a review of the data available to us about Drumconner Care Home 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 Drumconner Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
Drumconner Care home is registered to accommodate up to 37 people. At the time of our inspection there were 26 older people living in one adapted building in a residential area of Bournemouth.
We found the following examples of good practice.
There was a clear procedure in place to welcome visitors to the home, detailed instructions were displayed and face masks and hand sanitisers at the entrance. Visitors had their temperature taken, and were asked specific questions about their current health and wellbeing then prompted to wash their hands using the facilities available. Staff had a designated area for putting on, removing and disposing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). The home had a designated staff member to support and guide with correct hand washing techniques.
The home was clean and tidy and detailed cleaning schedules were in place. Staff responsible for the cleanliness of the home carried out general cleaning and deep cleaning of specific areas. Communal areas and frequently touched points such as door handles and switches were cleaned frequently throughout the day. There was a strict admissions process in place which involved testing before admission and a period of isolation, to ensure everyone was kept safe.
The home had a designated space for visitors outside and inside, using a booking system. This area known as the ‘Bubble Room’ enabled people and their loved ones to meet safely, with screened off seating and supplies of PPE available. A staff member was assigned to all visitors in the home. Communal areas had been rearranged to enable social distancing. Risk assessments in place contributed to keeping people and staff safe by reviewing their individual health conditions which may mean they were at an increased risk.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall and had become Outstanding in response to the question “Is the Service Responsive?”
Relatives and professionals told us that the staff were exceptionally creative in the way they responded to people’s changing needs, monitoring the care delivered and seeking advice and guidance to ensure the best possible outcomes for people. This meant people experienced very good outcomes and had personalised care.
People and relatives were involved in planning activities and staff had gone the extra mile to ensure people were able to fill their time in ways that worked for them.
People were supported by staff who understood the risks they faced and how to support them to reduce these. Staff understood how to identify and report abuse and advocated on people’s behalf to ensure their access to appropriate support from other agencies. Staff also supported people to take medicines safely.
People were supported by skilled and caring staff who worked to ensure they lived their life the way they chose. Communication styles and methods were considered and staff supported people to understand the choices available to them.
People were enabled to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the systems in the service supported this practice.
People, relatives and professionals told us they could confidently raise any concerns and these were addressed appropriately.
Quality assurance systems involved people and led to a safer and better quality service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
The inspection visit took place on 19 and 21 August and was unannounced.
Drumconner is a care home service with nursing. The home is registered to accommodate up to 36 people. There are two lounges, a dining room and a garden for people to enjoy.
There was a registered manager in place. 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 9 July 2013 the service was meeting the requirements of the regulations that were inspected at that time.
There were 35 people living in the home at the time of our inspection. People who lived at the home told us they felt safe and secure with staff to support them. People’s care and support needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Care records contained details of people’s preferences, interests, likes and dislikes.
Staffing levels and the skills mix of staff were sufficient to meet the needs of people and keep them safe. The recruitment of staff had been undertaken through a thorough process. All checks that were required had been completed prior to staff commencing work.
Medicine was dispensed and administered in a safe manner. The staff member responsible for administering medication dealt with one person at a time to minimise risks associated with this process. We discussed training and found all staff responsible for administering medicines had received formal medication training to ensure they were confident and competent to give medication to people.
People were asked for their consent before care was provided. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 including the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had the knowledge, skills and experience to carry out their role. People told us there were always staff available to help them when needed.
Staff were provided with relevant induction training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff understood their role and what was expected of them. They were happy in their work, motivated and had confidence in the way the service was managed.
People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health. A varied and nutritious diet was provided to people. This took into account their dietary needs and preferences so that their health was promoted and choices respected.
People told us they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and felt confident they would be listened to.
People participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home that were meaningful and promoted independence.
There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.
People using the service and their relatives and others had been asked their opinion via surveys, the results of these were in the process of being audited to identify any areas for improvement.
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service well led?
This is a summary of what we found-
Is the service caring?
We spoke with three people who told us that their needs were met. One person told us, 'My drinks have thickener in them. The staff do this for me. They always get it right.' Another person said, 'The staff help me in the hoist. There is always two of them. I feel very safe when they help me.' A further person commented, 'The staff help me in the hoist as I can't walk. I feel safe in it.'
Is the service responsive?
People could access healthcare service when they required. One person told us, 'I don't see the doctor very often, but I can see him when I want.' We found that contact and advice from healthcare professionals such as the GP and speech and language therapist were detailed in people's care records. For example, a GP had been contacted and prescribed medicine for a chest infection.
We spoke with three people who were aware of the complaints system and felt able to make complaints. One person told us, 'I would feel able to complain if I needed to. I could speak to any of the staff.' Another person said, 'I have no complaints at all. I would tell the matron if I did.' The registered manager told us that each person had been given a copy of the home's complaint's procedure. We looked at meeting minutes which showed that the complaints procedure had been discussed with people and their representatives.
The home's complaints procedure provided information as to how people could make complaints. The procedure detailed who the complainant should contact and what to do if they were not satisfied with the response. The provider may find it useful to note that the complaints information stated that complaints should be referred to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) if either party was not satisfied with the local process. The CQC does not have powers to investigate individual complaints but can be contacted at any time for people to share their experience of care services which helps to inform how we inspect.
Is the service safe?
Care was not always planned and delivered to meet people's needs. For example, there was not an effective system in place in relation to the changing of people's urinary catheters. The registered manager told us that three people living at the home had a long term urinary catheter. There was no plan or system in place to highlight when people's urinary catheters would be changed. One person's urinary catheter had not been changed at the time it should have been. The registered manager told us that they would arrange for this person's catheter to be changed immediately.
Care was planned and delivered to reduce the risk of people falling and developing pressure related skin damage. For example, one person had been assessed as being at a high risk of skin damage. We found that a plan was in place to reduce this risk which included them being assisted to change position at regular intervals and to have a pressure-reliving air-mattress. We saw that this equipment was in place and was set to a level consistent with the person's weight. We looked at records which demonstrated that this person was assisted to change position regularly. Another person was assessed as being at risk of falling from bed. There was a plan for this person to have bed rails and bumpers attached to their bed to reduce this risk. We found that this equipment was in place.
We found that the home was clean and smelt fresh. We spoke with three people. One person told us, 'The home is absolutely spotless. They are forever cleaning it. The bathroom and toilet are done every day.' Another person said, 'It's always very clean here. They do the hovering and I polish.' A further person commented, 'It's very clean.' The home had a team of housekeeping staff. We spoke with the head house keeper who told us that they considered that the arrangements for cleaning were sufficient to keep the home clean.
No one living at the home was subject to an authorisation under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. These safeguards aim to protect people living in care homes and hospitals from being inappropriately deprived of their liberty. These safeguards can only be used when there is no other way of supporting a person safely. The registered manager told us that they were in the process of reviewing the impact of a recent Supreme Court judgement which may affect some people living in care homes.
Is the service effective?
Our inspection on 30 October 2013 found that not all staff were appropriately supported in relation to their responsibilities because they did not all receive appropriate supervision to enable them to deliver care and treatment safely and to the appropriate standard. The provider wrote to us and told us that they would make changes to meet the requirements of this standard. During this inspection we found that improvements had been made.
We spoke with three people who told us that they were supported by skilled staff. One person told us, 'I am confident that they know what they are doing. It's very reassuring being in a place like this. They have to do a lot for me.' Another person said, 'All of the staff are very good.' A further person commented, 'The day staff are very good.'
Staff considered that they had sufficient training to carry out their roles effectively. We spoke with five staff who had different positions within the home. Staff told us they had completed training in a variety of topics such as, health and safety and moving and handling. Staff told us that they considered that the training they had received had been useful to complete their duties. We looked at the training records. We found that not all staff had attended training in topics such as fire and moving and handling. For example, we found that seven of the 26 healthcare care assistants had not completed fire training. The registered manager told us that training was being carried out at the time of inspection which would reduce this number.
Staff were supervised and supported. The registered manager had introduced a new system of staff supervision. We found that all staff were allocated a supervisor. Staff told us that they had received supervision within the last two months and had found this useful and supportive. Staff told us that during supervision sessions they were able to raise concerns and receive feedback as to their performance.
Is the service well led?
People's views of the service were sought. The provider sought the views of people using a variety of methods. For example, we found that a survey of people and their representatives had been carried out. The results of this survey were analysed and an action plan developed to address issues raised in the survey. The results of the survey and plans were presented to a meeting of people and their representatives.
Staff views were sought. We spoke with five staff who told us that they felt able to make suggestions to improve the service. The provider undertook a survey of staff views and had developed an action plan to address issues raised by staff.
The provider undertook a variety of audits of practice. Audits included, staff hand hygiene, infection rates, medicines and health and safety. There was a monthly review of accidents and incidents. The registered manager told us that they reviewed the supervisions of staff on a regular basis to ensure that staff were supported.
We found that people's individual needs were assessed and that care was planned and delivered to meet their needs. People we spoke with told us that they were satisfied with the care they received and a person's relative said "my relative is always well cared for and staff know what they need and what they like". We found that people's care was planned to promote people's safety and well being.
People told us they felt 'safe' in the home and we saw that staff had completed training in safeguarding people from abuse. We found that staff we spoke with understood abuse and the actions they would take if they had any concerns.
Staff we spoke with told us about the training they received and people told us that they were satisfied with the standard of care they received from the provider's staff. One person said "I am happy with the staff, they treat me with respect". Another person said "staff listen to me and I am well cared for". We have asked the provider to make some improvements in the supervision support they gave to staff.
People received support to meet their needs according to their care plans. Any risks to a person's wellbeing had been identified and plans put into place to minimise these. Activities were available for people who wished to participate in them. We saw individuals engaged in various activities on our visits, both in groups and alone.
People were assisted to eat and drink and were able to choose what they ate and where. Staff supported people discreetly to ensure they received sufficient nutrition and fluids.
People's medicines were handled and administered safely; however, staff needed to make sure people had taken their tablets, before completing medication administration records.
There were adequate numbers of staff available to support people to meet their needs.
Records related to the running of the home were kept securely. Care plans, risk assessments and daily records evidenced the care and treatment given.
During a visit to the home on 13th March 2012 we met and spoke with people who use the service or their relatives and some staff. All of them told us that they had been consulted and involved in their own and their relatives' needs assessment and care plan. They told us that it was part of life in the home to be consulted and involved in various issues relating to both their individual life and life as part of a community.
We observed the service of the lunchtime meal. We saw that staff and people living in the home were relaxed with each other, laughing and chatting. Often staff offered assistance without people having to ask for it. Those who did ask for help were attended to quickly. We saw that staff knew each persons likes and dislikes and clearly had good relationships with the people they cared for.
People who live in the home told us that they felt safe and had confidence in the staff. They also said that they were confident that if they had any concerns, they would be listened to.
We spoke with one of the visitors who told us that they felt able to relax knowing that
their relative was safe and looked after by staff who are kind and caring.
People living in the home, and their visitors, told us that they felt their needs were met by the staff team. They said that the staff always knew what needed to be done and were confident that they were properly trained to do it.
People living in the home told us that they were confident that if they had any concerns, they would be listened to.