You are here

Archived: Dene Court Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

Dene Court is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to 28 people who may have needs due to old age, sensory impairment, physical disabilities, dementia, learning disabilities, autism or mental health needs. 24 people were living in the service at the time of the inspection. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

At the inspection of the home carried out in November 2015 we found breaches of regulations. The service was then rated as 'inadequate' and placed into special measures. The special measures process is designed to ensure there is a timely and coordinated response where we judge the standard of care to be inadequate.

At the next comprehensive inspection of the service in April 2016, we found significant improvements. There were no breaches of legal requirements at that inspection, but there had been insufficient time for new management systems to be embedded. Therefore we rated the service as ‘requires improvement’.

On 31 August 2017 and 5 September 2017 we carried out an unannounced focussed inspection to look specifically at the safety of the service and to check that improvements had been maintained. We confirmed this was the case and the service was safe.

The home had a 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. They, along with the provider were committed to the improvement and development of the service and had continued to make significant changes which had a positive impact on the safety and quality of the service.

At the inspection in April 2016 we found the quality monitoring systems in place to ensure the home ran smoothly were not yet fully established. At this inspection we found there was a comprehensive system of audits in place which scrutinised all aspects of service provision and the environment. People, relatives and staff were invited to express their views of the service through satisfaction surveys and at staff and residents meetings. The information from the quality assurance processes was used to drive improvements at the service.

There were systems in place to ensure risk assessments were comprehensive, current, and supported staff to provide safe care whilst promoting independence. The computerised care planning system, accessed by staff using hand held computers, ensured that information about people’s risks was shared efficiently and promptly across the staff team. This meant staff had detailed knowledge of people’s individual risks and the measures necessary to minimise them. Care plans were comprehensive and reviewed monthly; however we had mixed views from people and their relatives about how the service involved them in this process and decisions about their care. We raised this issue with the registered manager who was already looking at ways to improve communication with families and provided reassurance they would take action to involve people and their relatives more in reviewing their care plans.

People had mixed views about the food at the service. Most said they enjoyed the food, but would prefer more choice. People had sufficient to eat and drink and received a balanced diet, and care plans guided staff to provide the support they needed. The service supported people with special dietary needs, for example a diabetic or pureed diet. However one person expressed concern about the availability of food appropriate for their specific dietary needs and staff understanding of their condition. The registered manager told us they had been working with the pe

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was safe.

People were protected by staff that understood and managed risk. People were supported to have as much control and independence as possible.

People were protected from avoidable harm and abuse.

People had their medicines managed safely.

People were protected by safe recruitment practices and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff to meet people�s needs.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

People received support from staff that knew them well and had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

Staff were well supported and received regular training and supervision.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and promoted choice and independence whenever possible.

People�s eating and drinking needs were known and supported, although some additional staff training was required.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was caring.

Staff were kind and compassionate and treated people with respect.

People were supported to express their views about the quality of the service.

Staff supported people to improve their lives by promoting their independence and wellbeing.

Equality and diversity was respected and people�s individuality supported.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People had comprehensive care plans which were reviewed regularly. The service was working to increase the involvement of people and their relatives in these reviews and decisions about their care.

The service was proactive in identifying and meeting the information and communication needs of people living at the service.

People�s end of life preferences were known and followed.

People were able to take part in a programme of activities which was being further developed to better meet their needs.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint and raise any concerns. Complaints were responded to in line with the provider�s policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 June 2018

The service was well led.

The management team provided strong leadership.

The provider and registered manager were clear about their values and vision for the service, and worked to ensure these were understood and implemented by the staff team.

Quality assurance systems drove improvement and raised standards of care.

Staff were motivated and inspired to develop and provide quality care. They felt listened to.