You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

We carried out an inspection of Dove Court Care Home on 14, 15 and 16 November 2017. The first day was unannounced.

At our last inspection on November 2015 we found there were no breaches of legal requirements.

Dove Court Care Home is a care home that provides nursing care. 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.

Dove Court Care Home is purpose built and accommodates 120 people across four separate 30 bed houses, each of which have separate spacious communal areas, suitably equipped bathrooms and a satellite kitchen. Each house has a unit manager. The houses comprise of Robin for people with general nursing needs, Nightingale for people who require personal care and support, Swallow provides personal care and support for people living with dementia and Kingfisher provides nursing care for people who are living with dementia. There were 114 people accommodated in the home on the day of our inspection.

At the time of our inspection the registered manager was no longer managing the service. A manager had been in post from 18 September 2017; an application to register with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) had been forwarded. 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.

During this inspection we found that all regulations were being met.

People told us they felt safe and staff were caring. Staff were observed to have positive relationships with people. There were no restrictions placed on visiting times for friends and relatives. We observed staff communicating with people in a kind and respectful way. People told us staff respected their privacy and dignity and encouraged them to be independent.

Safeguarding adults' procedures were in place and staff understood how to protect people from abuse. People were complimentary of the staff who supported them and felt they had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs. They described staff as ‘friendly’, ‘brilliant’, ‘caring’ and ‘thoughtful’.

People’s views with regards to staffing levels varied. Some considered there were enough suitably skilled staff to support them when they needed any help whilst others felt this could be improved at times. Staff generally felt they were suitable numbers of staff available and that staffing levels had improved recently under the new manager. We noted a shortfall in staffing during the inspection which was addressed immediately. Staffing levels were monitored to ensure sufficient staff were available and the recruitment of new staff was underway.

A robust recruitment procedure was followed to ensure new staff were suitable to care for vulnerable people. Arrangements were in place to make sure staff were trained and competent.

Medicines were managed safely and people had their medicines when they needed them. Staff administering medicines had been trained and supervised to do this safely.

People opinions about the standard of the meals varied. People were offered choices and alternatives to the menu were provided. Improvements regarding how people’s meal time experience could be improved were shared with the manager.

People were supported to take part in a wide range of suitable activities which were held on each of the houses.

The information in people’s care plans was sufficiently detailed to reflect that people were at the centre of their care. We noted a number of gaps were evident in some of the personal care records; they were being addressed. People’s care and support was kept under review and, where appropriate, they were invo

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

Records showed staffing levels were maintained and additional staff had been provided as needed. People’s views about the availability of staff varied and we found a shortfall in staffing on one house which was addressed during the inspection.

People’s risks had been assessed and were managed appropriately although some records were not always reflective of the care being given.

People felt safe in the home and were protected against the risk of abuse.

Safe recruitment practices had been followed and people's medicines were managed safely and administered by trained and competent staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were provided with training and professional development which enabled them to meet people’s needs although there were gaps in the provision of supervision. People felt that staff were competent and could support them effectively.

The environment was safe and comfortable for people to live in. There was a development plan to support planned improvements and a system of reporting required repairs and maintenance was in place.

People’s opinions about the meals varied and the mealtime experience varied on each house. Choices were offered and alternatives to the menu were available.

People were supported appropriately with their healthcare. People were referred appropriately to community healthcare professionals.

Staff had received training to improve their understanding of the MCA 2005 legislation. People's capacity to make safe decisions and to consent to care had been recorded.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was caring.

Staff knew people well and good relationships had developed. We observed staff treating people with kindness and respect.

People told us they were encouraged to be independent. We noted that equipment was available which supported people to be as independent as possible.

Staff respected people's rights to privacy, dignity and independence. Where possible, people were able to make their own choices and were involved in decisions about their day.

Responsive

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was responsive.

People were supported to take part in varied and suitable activities.

People were receiving the care and support they needed although improvements were needed to ensure this was always reflected in the care plan. Some people had been involved in the review of their care.

People had no complaints and felt confident raising their concerns and complaints with the manager or staff.

Well-led

Good

Updated 13 December 2017

The service was well led.

There was a new management team in place. The manager had made an application to register with CQC.

People made positive comments about the manager and staff. They felt the service was well managed and were happy with the recent changes and improvements made.

There were effective systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. Areas for improvement had been identified and action was underway to address any shortfalls.

People’s views and opinions of the service were sought with good evidence they were listened to.