Dovehaven Grove

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this service under the new provider. The service was rated good under the last provider. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us they were confident in the care provided to people. Comments included, “They have been quick to respond to our wishes and [persons] changing circumstances nothing has been too much trouble they really have gone out of their way to get their room set up with all the right equipment for their needs.” Relatives told us that they were confident that their wishes were being respected and were kept involved throughout the journey of care.

Staff told us about the care people required for their needs. One person told us, “I think people are treated as individuals. I know people well.” The registered manager told us that families were involved in pre-admission visits, paperwork and care planning wherever possible.”

We observed the staff team providing kind and person-centred care to people and as they needed it. However, we saw 1 person required support with their appearance where staff did not immediately act on this. We discussed with the registered manager about ensuring staff understood the need to act on people’s appearance in a timely manner.

There was an electronic care recording system. Where care records were completed and accurate they included person centred information about people’s needs

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Relatives told us professionals were involved in their care when needed. One relative said, “The home (service) have been very understanding because we didn’t know what to expect [person] only come for respite, but we are considering more full-time care, and they have explained the options.”

Staff and the management team confirmed professionals were visiting the service to support people’s needs. We saw that professionals were visiting the service during the assessment. These included planned reviews undertaken by district nurses and an emergency review responding to a person who was unwell. Care records and daily handovers included information and updates about people’s care and support.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff knew where to access information about people as well as how to support alternative ways of communicating with them. One said, “We don’t use picture cards or anything like that, but we speak slowly and clearly and use hand gestures for some people.”

We talked about one person’s individual needs in relation to how to communicate and support them. The registered manager told us, “They [person] have an advocate and [the person] is able to answer yes and no. We have purchased prompt cards to support them to communicate.” The electronic care record for the person included information about their individual communication needs. Confidential information was being stored securely and electronic devices contained passwords to access personal information.

There was a service user guide with information about the service and the facilities they provided, and a range of information and guidance was on display and available to people and staff about Dovehaven Grove.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives mostly told us they were happy and raised no concerns. They said they knew. ‘How to raise a complaint and who to speak to.’ The provider had developed an innovative way for people to provide both positive and negative feedback with posters on display throughout the service with QR code links and instructions about how to use.

Staff knew what to do to in relation to complaints and concerns. One said, “If someone wasn’t happy I would try and help but usually better to direct to a senior.” The registered manager discussed how complaints were dealt with. They told us, “We acknowledge in line with policy, investigate we usually email with a letter then escalate to senior management if we need to.” They told us about a previous complaint and how this was managed including the involvement of senior management.

There was an up-to-date policy in relation to the management of complaints and guidance about how to complain was in the service user guide. Records in relation to complaints was seen which included details of the correspondence with people as well as the outcome to the complaints. The provider told us a complaints spreadsheet had been developed to record the complaints; this would support monitoring of them and any actions required. However, we saw that the information recorded in this related to incidents and accidents and not complaints.

Feedback was being sought from people and staff. Surveys and feedback was obtained from staff and relatives and there was a comments and suggestions box in the entrance. Feedback about you said, we did was on display in the entrance to the service. Staff told us they had been asked for their views. One staff member said they had, ‘Completed some (surveys)’, but was not sure of the frequency.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

We saw professionals on the days of our assessment, and we received feedback that professionals were involved in supporting people’s care and needs.

Partners confirmed they were involved. Staff and leaders told us about the relationships they had with partners; they told us people’s needs and the input of professionals in accessing services and support was discussed in handovers. Policy, procedure and guidance was available and accessible to the staff team to support the delivery of care to people.

The service was accessible to people and doors were secured safely. Where most people wished, their bedroom doors had been secured when they were in communal areas.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

A relative told us they had been involved in planning and decisions about their family member’s care. We asked staff about whether people were treated fairly and their wishers supported. One staff member said they think everyone is treated fairly. We observed a range of activities taking place with staff supporting and encouraging people to be involved.

Care records included information about people’s care and reviews were seen. However, we discussed with the registered manager that these could be better. They agreed and told us that work on care planning and care records required improving and that this was planned. Handover records were being completed and there was some information in relation to communicating with professionals along with information in relation to the input of professionals in daily records in the electronic system. We saw records that the management team had undertaken reviews of preadmission assessments to ensure theses had been completed.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People’s wishes were respected, and they were involved in decisions for the future. People said, “The registered manager had helped [them] to understand [persons] care options and, [I] am kept very much involved in making decisions.” One person told us they had discussed their end of life wishes with the registered manager and felt comfortable doing so. They said, “I have told my [relative] that I have signed the form DNR (DNACPR, do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation). I don’t want to go on if something happens.”

Staff and the management team told us no one was in receipt of end-of-life care. One staff member said there were care plans in place for end-of-life care and that they had read them. Staff and the registered manager said no one was receiving end of life care but they had read care plans and undertaken training.

People’s end of life care was reviewed in handover records, and we saw that DNACPRs were noted in the records we reviewed. We saw records about ensuring the person should be treated with dignity, respect and with the company of staff at the end of people’s life.