You are here

Archived: The Dukes House 3 Inadequate

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Inadequate

Updated 3 April 2020

About the service

The Duke’s House 3 is a residential care home providing accommodation, support and personal care to three people who have a learning disability, autism or a mental health support need. The service can support up to six people. The home is a three storey Victorian building, in a residential area of New Brighton. Each person has an en-suite room; and there were communal areas.

The Duke’s House 3 shares the same staff team, management team, outdoor space, office and many other systems with the providers location The Duke’s House which is next door. We inspected both services at the same time; specific information regarding The Dukes House is reported in a separate report.

The service has not been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. Registering the Right Support, ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence.

The service was next door to another location provided by Lifeways Inclusive Lifestyles. To the public they look like and in many aspects operate as one care home; between them can accommodate up to 14 people. This is larger than current best practice guidance. In some ways this was mitigated, for example; there were no identifying signs to indicate it was a care home and staff were discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people. However, in other ways the care home was in contrast to the surrounding homes. For example, the three front gardens had been converted into one large car park, there were large gates across all entrances and there were no bay window coverings and when the lights were on the public could see into people’s communal areas from the street.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Staff were caring in their interactions with people and it was evident that staff endeavoured to have positive relationships with people. Whilst staff as individuals had a caring approach towards people; the provider had not developed, promoted or ensured that there was a caring culture at the home that respected and enabled people.

The home had a very restrictive environment. The provider had taken depriving people of their liberties for granted and had not ensured that people’s fundamental rights were acknowledged and protected.

The systems in place for assessing, monitoring and managing risks when supporting people were inadequate. They had not always ensured that the use of restraint had been safe and effective. This meant that important information regarding people’s safety was not always available for staff.

People’s risk assessments had not always been reviewed following a significant incident. The safe and effective use of restraint had not always been reviewed after significant physical interventions. There was inadequate debriefing and learning from incidents; even when staff members told us that they had raised safety concerns about the management of incidents.

Staff had not always been effective in listening to a person’s communication and actions. The culture at the home had not promoted staff being curious and exploring with them, what views or decisions they were communicating.

People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service did not support this practice.

The service didn’t always apply the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, c

Inspection areas

Safe

Inadequate

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Inadequate

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not always caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not always responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 3 April 2020

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.