You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 7 September 2018

Darsdale Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Darsdale Home accommodates up to 30 older people in a converted building which has two floors. Most of the bedrooms and all communal areas were based on the ground floor. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people staying there.

At our last inspection in August 2017 the service was rated as overall ‘Requires Improvement’. Although we found there have been some improvements at this inspection we found there were areas that still needed to improve, so overall the service remains rated as ‘Requires Improvement.’

The service did not have a registered manager, however, a manager was in place who was in the process of completing their application to become the registered manager. 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.

People received care from staff who were kind, compassionate and respectful. However, the care was task focussed and there was limited interaction with people outside of completing care tasks.

People’s needs were assessed prior to coming to the home and detailed care plans were in place, however, these did not always reflect the current care needs of people. Risks to people had been identified and measures put in place to mitigate any risk but staff were not always aware of the risks and did not follow the guidance given.

The systems in place to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks relating to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service had not been consistently kept.

Staffing levels had improved but needed to be maintained and account taken of people’s needs outside of basic care and mobility. There was a high usage of staff from a staffing agency which had impacted on the consistency and standard of care delivered.

Staff were supported through regular supervisions and undertook training which helped them to understand the needs of some of the people they were supporting, training needed be widened to cover the needs of a diverse group of people.

There were appropriate recruitment processes in place and people felt safe in the home. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe from any risk or harm and knew how to respond if they had any concerns.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People’s health care and nutritional needs were carefully considered and relevant health care professionals were appropriately involved in people’s care.

People were cared for by staff who were respectful of their dignity. Relatives spoke positively about the care their relative received and felt that they could approach management and staff to discuss any issues or concerns they had.

The manager was approachable and people felt confident that any issues or concerns raised would be addressed and appropriate action taken.

The service strived to remain up to date with legislation and best practice and worked with outside agencies to continuously look at ways to improve the experience for people.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 7 September 2018

The service was not always safe.

There was not always sufficient staff deployed throughout the day to care for people safely.

People told us they felt safe and there were risk assessments in place to mitigate any identified risks to people but these were not always fully understood by staff

Recruitment practices ensured that people were safeguarded against the risk of being cared for by unsuitable staff.

There were safe systems in place for the administration of medicines and people could be assured they were cared for by staff who understood their responsibilities to keep them safe.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 September 2018

The service was not always effective.

People were not always supported by staff who had the skills and experience to meet their needs.

People were involved in decisions about the way in which their care and support was provided.

People had access to health professionals and were assisted to attend medical appointments.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 September 2018

The service was not always caring

People’s care was often task focussed and staff had limited time to interact with people outside providing care.

Staff were kind and respectful; people were able to make choices and decisions about their care and their dignity was protected.

Visitors were welcomed at any time.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 September 2018

The service was not always responsive.

People’s care plans were not always updated to reflect their current needs.

People were encouraged to maintain their interests and take part in activities.

People were aware that they could raise a concern about their care and there was written information provided on how to make a complaint.


Requires improvement

Updated 7 September 2018

The service was not always well-led

The systems in place to monitor the quality of care had not been maintained and any shortfalls had not been picked up in a timely way and addressed.

People and their families were encouraged and enabled to give their feedback and were kept informed about the development of the home.