You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

This inspection was carried out on 6 and 7 August 2018 and was announced on both days.

Danebank is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home can accommodate up to four young adults with a learning disability. There were two people living at the home time of our inspection.

The home has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.'

The home has 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered provider had safe recruitment systems in place. All directly recruited and agency staff had completed an induction. All staff had undertaken mandatory training in accordance with best practice guidelines. Staff received on-going support through staff handovers and team meetings. Staff told us they felt well supported.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the home and this information was used to create individual person centred care plans and risk assessments. These documents included clear guidance for staff to meet individual people’s needs. People’s needs that related to age, disability, religion or other protected characteristics were considered throughout the assessment care planning process.

Staff had developed positive relationships with the people who lived at the home. We saw that people’s privacy was respected and their independence was promoted. We observed many positive interactions between staff and the people living at the home throughout our inspection.

The registered provider had safeguarding policies and procedures in place that staff were familiar with. All staff had received training and were able to describe what abuse may look like in the process they would follow to raise any concern.

Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of in accordance with best practice guidelines. The registered provider had medicines policies and procedures in place that all staff were familiar with. Staff had all risk received training in medicines administration and had their competency regularly assessed.

People’s food and drink needs were met and clear guidance was in place for staff to follow to meet people’s specific dietary needs. People’s food likes and dislikes were clearly documented.

People living at the home engaged in activities of their choice both within the home environment and the community.

The registered provider had audit systems in place that were consistently completed. The audit system identified areas for development and improvement within the home.

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and report on what we found. We saw that the registered provider had guidance available for staff in relation to the MCA. Staff had undertaken training and demonstrated a basic understanding of this. The registered provider had made appropriate applications for the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Care records reviewed included mental capacity assessments and best interest meetings.

There was a clear complaints policy and procedure in place that relatives knew how to access and they felt confident to raise any concerns they had. This document was available in an easy read and pictorial format.

Policies and procedures were

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was Safe.

People's medicines were ordered, stored and administered by trained and competent staff.

Risk assessments were in place that identified and mitigated the risks to people's safety and well-being.

Systems were in place to reduce the risk of abuse. The registered provider had a policy and procedure in place the safeguarding people from abuse which staff understood.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was Effective.

People received appropriate support to meet their individual food & drink requirements.

People's rights were protected by staff who had received training and had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff had received up-to-date training to ensure they had the right knowledge and skills to meet people's needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was Caring.

Staff understood the importance of privacy and dignity, this was respected and promoted.

Positive relationships had been developed between staff and the people living at the home.

People were supported by staff that were kind, caring and patient.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was Responsive.

People's care plans were individual and person centred and included clear guidance for staff to follow.

The registered provider had a complaints policy and procedure that was available in easy read and pictorial formats.

People were supported to access activities of their choice.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 September 2018

The service was Well-Led.

The registered provider had up-to-date policies and procedures in place to support and guide staff.

Audit systems were in place for continual development and improvements to be identified and addressed.

The home had a manager who was registered with the CQC. They notified the CQC as required of incidents that may affect the service.