You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 August 2016

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 22 and 23 September 2015. At which a breach of legal requirements was found. This was because the provider had failed to ensure there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, competent, skilled and experienced staff in the home deployed to meet the needs of the people living there.

After this comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach. We undertook a focussed inspection on the 22 and 23 March 2016 to check that the provider had made and sustained the improvements they had told us they would make. At that inspection, we found that some improvements had been made in terms of staffing levels, but the provider remained in breach of the regulations. We also found in a breach relating to the management of risks to ensure the health, safety and welfare of people living in the home.

After the focussed inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches that were found. We undertook this fully comprehensive inspection on the 4 July 2016 to check that the provider had made and sustained the improvements they had told us they would make.

Dingle Meadow provides accommodation and personal care for up to 46 older people. Some people lived with dementia. On the day of the inspection, 34 people were living at the home and there was a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection the registered manager was on extended leave and we spoke with the acting 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 told us they felt safe and were supported by staff who had received training in how to recognise different types of abuse. Staff were confident that if they raised any concerns then the appropriate action would be taken.

People who used the service and staff told us that they thought there were enough staff in post to meet their needs in a timely manner. People told us that they received their medicines on time. Our observations confirmed this to be the case.

Staff felt supported and well trained to do their job. They were encouraged to access training that was made available to them.

Staff interacted well with people. People’s consent was sought before they were supported and where they lacked capacity their human rights were protected as required within the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

People were supported to have a nutritionally balanced diet and adequate fluids throughout the day and were offered a choice at mealtimes. People were supported to access a number of healthcare services such as their GP, the dentist and optician.

People were supported by staff who were caring and kind but people’s privacy and dignity was not always consistently met.

People were involved in their care plans and asked how they wished to be supported. Staff understood people’s preferences and choices and what was important to them.

People and their relatives were invited to meetings to provide to discuss the service and the quality of care provided. Visitors were encouraged to complete an electronic feedback survey at every visit. There were plans in place to send out surveys to people and their families, later in the year.

Activities were available for people to participate in and efforts were made to provide people with the opportunity to mix with people on other units to engage in activities they enjoyed.

There was a system in place for people to raise complaints and for those that had, we saw that they had been investigated and recorded appropriately.

People, their relatives and staff described the

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 August 2016

The service was safe.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who were aware of the risks to them on a daily basis and how to manage those risks.

People felt safe and confident that staff were able to protect them from abuse and harm.

People’s medicines were administered, stored and handled in a safe manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 August 2016

The service was effective.

Staff were trained to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to support people appropriately.

People were supported to have enough food and drink and staff understood people’s nutritional needs

The manager and staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 23 August 2016

The service was not consistently caring.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the staff and the care they received.

We observed that people’s privacy and dignity was not consistently met.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 August 2016

The service was responsive.

People were supported by staff who were aware of their likes and dislikes, and efforts were in place to develop this information further.

A number of activities were available to people in the home and people were encouraged to participate in activities that they personally enjoyed.

Where people had raised a complaint, they were investigated and actions taken where necessary.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 August 2016

The service was well led.

People and staff all spoke positively about the manager and the support she provided.

People had recognised the changes that the manager had introduced into the home and the positive effect this had on the people living there.

There were a number of quality audits in place that identified shortfalls and all staff were engaged in the driving of improvement in the home.