You are here

Archived: Dunsland Inadequate

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 5 June 2014
Date of Publication: 8 July 2014
Inspection Report published 08 July 2014 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 5 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with staff.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

At the time of the inspection staff at Dunsland were in the process of updating people's care records and support plans. This involved obtaining a thorough and concise history of each person. New care plans covered aspects such as a full life, family and medical history, identified needs, likes and dislikes, risk assessments and personal care and hygiene. People were assured that their care and support was based upon their most up to date information.

Photographs of people who lived at the home, their individual health books, consents, key worker information and personal details were all looked at. These were further supported by safeguarding, manual handling, key worker monthly reports and reviews. This told us that the provider took steps to ensure as much information as possible was available to support people and their changing needs whilst living at Dunsland.

The provider was in the process of a rolling programme of refurbishment, both internally and externally. There was evidence found that people and staff had played a role in choosing furniture and decoration and how the garden was to be re-designed. People who lived at the home were clearly happy at being involved in such decisions and with their refurbished surroundings.

As part of the commitment to continuing to improve the services on offer the provider was considering options for an 'open day' and again people and staff were involved in this process.

We found audits were taking place in the areas such as medication, paperwork, one-to-one hours, support plans and health and safety to ensure that standards were maintained. All audits took place monthly.

Group supervisions with staff took place monthly and usually lasted three days. Results were shared and learning taken from the outcomes. The provider had a system for feeding back on things to improve on. We found a note in the recent feedback that "residents are much happier at one-to-ones - this is a massive plus." We also found comments from family members in the audit results. One comment stated, "Thanks to all staff for the kindness and attention you have paid to [person receiving the service]"

Surveys took place annually to seek people’s views of the service they received and we looked at results of the May 2014 survey. People were asked if they were happy with the support received, if were staff friendly, if they were happy with the activities supplied and did they get choice. Surveys were in easy-read format. We saw comments such as 'wishing to grow vegetables', 'less shouting please' and 'more activities please'. We found evidence that the provider had taken these requests on board and was working to address them.

We also established that the provider intended in the near future to compile another survey which would include other health and social care providers who visited the home.

We found evidence that staff were able to make comments, raise concerns, make suggestions or complaints and that these were dealt with in a timely, confidential manner and that, where necessary, a thorough investigation had taken place.

Staff were given access to an online system for locating, receiving or submitting information. There were hard copies of the provider’s policies and procedures also available for staff.

We found a suggestion box in the main entrance which had been made by a resident and it was confirmed that this was checked regularly. People were offered a variety of ways on how they could suggest improvements to the service.