Dean House

Updated 26 February 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type:

Dean House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: The inspection was unannounced.

What we did:

Before the inspection we gathered information we had regarding the service. We reviewed notifications the service sent to us. A notification is a report the provider sends to us every time there is a significant event or incident.

The registered manager sent us a PIR or provider information return. This is a document that contains information on how the service is developing and any planned improvements.

During the inspection we spoke with five people using the service, one staff member and the registered manager. We spoke with one health and social care professional during the inspection and contacted and received feedback from a further two after the inspection.

After the inspection we received feedback from three relatives, and a further six staff members. We asked the registered manager to send us some further information which they did promptly.

We looked at four people’s care records, including risk assessing, day to day recording and information around consent and the Mental Capacity Act. We looked at records for complaints, accidents and incidents and safeguarding. We reviewed the MAR (medicine administration records) for eight people, how medicines were stored and the accompanying records for medicines.

We walked through the building and spent time in the art room, communal lounge and dining room. Three people chose to show us their bedrooms. We observed the lunchtime meal in the dining room using SOFI (short observational framework for inspection) which is a tool used for observing situations to try and gain an insight into the experiences of people who may not be able to or choose to communicate verbally with us.

We looked at training, supervision and recruitment records for five staff members and a sample of the policies used by the service. We looked at staffing levels and quality audits.

Updated 26 February 2019

About the service: Dean House is a residential care home in an adapted building in a quiet residential area of Torquay. It was providing accommodation and personal care to 13 people with learning disabilities at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

People told us they were safe and happy in the home. Staff were kind and caring and went over and above what was expected of them. People were treated with dignity, and respect was a key value embedded in the running of the home.

People were protected by robust safeguarding systems and staff were confident in how to spot abuse and what it might look like for people they supported.

Staff underwent checks to ensure they were safe to work with people. There was regular, in depth supervision provided to staff and opportunities for informal support from the registered manager for day to day issues.

There were adequate staffing numbers to meet people’s needs. Staff had time to talk with people. Staffing levels were flexible based on need and what people wanted to do. Staff members were all long-serving and agency staff were not used. This meant good continuity of care for people.

People had a range of healthy food options and were given opportunities to access exercise in the local community. We saw evidence of positive health outcomes, with one person losing weight and improving their mobility.

People chose what they ate, what they wore and how they spent their day. People had choice and control over their lives and had input into the running of the home.

Staff and people living in the home were provided with training and were knowledgeable in best practice care. Information was available in accessible formats, on display where appropriate in people’s rooms, in communal areas and in care files.

The registered manager was passionate about providing high quality care and checked different aspects of the care provision regularly to ensure high standards were being maintained.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control in their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Risks associated with people were assessed, communicated to staff and mitigated. We saw evidence risks were discussed with people and families.

Rating at last inspection: This service has not yet been rated under the current provider.

Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection; we had no previous concerns about this service.

Follow up: We will maintain regular contact with the service to see how they are doing and have signposted them for further support if they require it.