• Care Home
  • Care home

Signature House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Maumbury Gardens, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1GR (01305) 257248

Provided and run by:
Amica Care Trust

All Inspections

13 June 2023

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Signature House is a care home providing accommodation and personal and nursing care. The home is registered to provide care to a maximum of 48 people. The home specialises in the care of older people with dementia and/ or nursing needs. At the time of the inspection there were 44 people living at the home.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

People lived in a service run by a responsive provider. The provider had systems in place to monitor quality and plan on-going improvements. They responded robustly and transparently at the time when concerns about people's safety at night emerged.

We observed people were relaxed in the company of staff. People were cared for by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities and supported people safely.

People lived in a home where the registered manager was visible and monitored and improved the service.

Staff felt supported and part of a strong team that was committed to providing high quality care. They valued the support and recognition they received.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 11 October 2022).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns about how people were protected from harm at night were raised due to a safeguarding incident. The provider was responsive at the time and provided assurances about safety. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well led sections of this report.

Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

30 August 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Signature House is a care home providing accommodation and personal and nursing care. The home is registered to provide care to a maximum of 48 people. The home specialises in the care of older people with dementia and/ or nursing needs. At the time of the inspection there were 46 people living at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People said they felt safe and staff understood the risks they faced. Staff were confident in their understanding of the risks people faced and understood the measures in place to reduce these risks.

People felt well cared for at the home. They were cared for by staff who understood their safeguarding responsibilities.

People were supported in the least restrictive way possible by staff who were trained to use soft hold restraint in line with people’s care plans. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for appropriately where people needed this level of protection.

People lived in a home where the registered manager was visible in the home and monitored standards of care and sought people’s views.

People told us staff came when they called. There were enough safely recruited staff to meet people's care needs, there was ongoing recruitment to ensure people had access to sufficient meaningful activity.

Staff felt supported and part of a strong team that was committed to providing high quality care.

The provider had systems in place to monitor quality and plan on-going improvements.

The provider and registered manager were responsive throughout the inspection and took robust action to ensure any issues were adequately addressed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection – The last rating for this service was good (Published 2 August 2019)

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about staffing and risk management over a period of time. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks

As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern.

Please see the Safe and Well led sections of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

The overall rating for the service has not changed from Good based on the findings of this inspection.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Signature House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

17 June 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Signature House is a care home and provides personal or nursing care for people who have physical mobility problems and those living with dementia. The home can accommodate a maximum of 48 people. Accommodation is provided over three floors and all bedrooms have en--suite facilities. At the time of the inspection there were 46 people living at the home. The home was divided into three separate areas, the first floor for the care of people with moderate dementia care needs, the second floor supporting people with general nursing needs and the third floor supporting people with more complex dementia and mental health needs.

The provider was also registered for personal care. This was because the provider had 42 apartments adjacent to the care home. The provider offered a domiciliary care service to people living in the apartments. At the time of the inspection no one was receiving a domiciliary care service in the apartments.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People were safe living at Signature house. People we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care and support they received from staff. There was a registered manager who was proactive and had won “Boss of the year in 2018”.

There were effective quality assurance arrangements in place that helped raise standards and drive improvements. People knew how to complain. Incidents and accidents were minimal and if they occurred staff took appropriate actions and lessons were learned.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, restrictions were minimal and only implemented in people’s best interest. Mental capacity assessments and best interest paperwork were in place for areas such as personal care, medicines and finance. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs, and recruitment systems were robust.

Medicines were managed safely. The provider had a medicines policy which staff followed, staff were trained. Cleanliness was of a good standard and staff had access to personal protective equipment.

Assessments of people’s needs were comprehensive. Care records showed people had access to health professionals. People were active and took part in hobbies and interests that staff had identified with them.

Staff received supervision and an annual appraisal to monitor their development. In addition to an induction and regular training, appropriate to the needs of the people living at Signature House.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 October 2016). Since this rating was awarded the registered provider has altered its legal entity. At the last inspection the providers legal entity was Somerset Redstone Trust. At this inspection the legal entity is Amica Care Trust. We have used the previous rating of good to inform our planning and decisions about the rating at this inspection.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

15 September 2016

During a routine inspection

Signature house was last inspected on 16 and 17 March 2015. The home was rated as requires improvement in four of the five key areas. We set compliance actions in relation to the cleanliness of the home, infection control issues and treating people with dignity and respect. At this inspection we found that the required improvements had been made.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the inspection. 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.

Signature House is located in Dorchester, Dorset. The home can accommodate a maximum of 48 people. Accommodation is provided over three floors and all bedrooms have en--suite facilities. At the time of the inspection there were 43 people living at the home. The home was divided into three separate areas, the ground floor supporting people with nursing needs, the first floor for the care of people with moderate dementia care needs, The second floor supporting people with nursing needs and the third floor supporting people with more complex mental health needs.

The provider had added a personal care services to the registration meaning it could offer a domiciliary care service to people living in the community. At the time of the inspection two people were receiving a domiciliary care service.

The provider had made improvements to the cleanliness of the home. The home was found to be clean in all areas inspected. A group of cleaning staff had been employed at the home who were supported by a nominated infection control lead. The provider had good systems in place to monitor and make improvement to the cleaning of the home as required.

The provider had a system in place to ensure the suitability of new staff to work at the home. This system was consistently applied to all new staff. We found that all new staff had undergone appropriate checks to ensure their suitability to work with vulnerable people.

When people with enduring mental health issues, such as dementia displaying challenging behavior the staff had guidance to ensure they could support them safely and with dignity. The provider had a nominated member of staff to take on the role of dementia care lead. This member of staff provided support and guidance to other staff in relation to dementia type illness.

Staff demonstrated a caring and compassionate approach to people living at the home. Staff took their time to treat people with dignity and respect and were patient, encouraging the people they supported. People were offered choices at mealtimes such as where to sit and what to eat. They were encouraged to finish their meals when required by staff who knew peoples dietary requirements.

There were sufficient suitably trained staff to meet people’s needs. The people we spoke with told us they never have to wait too long for staff support. One person explained that the staff knew how to look after them, a relative told us about how staff had developed good communication with their relative even though their relative did not use words to express their wishes.

People told us they felt safe living at the home, they were aware of how to make a complaint. People told us that if there was an issue they would tell staff who would address this. There was evidence of complaints being addressed both swiftly and in line with the providers published policy.

The provider had good systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was regularly reviewed and improvements made. The provider demonstrated that they had taken action and made improvements in the service offered and had a plan in place to ensure ongoing improvements. .

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessments of people’s capacity had consistently been made. The staff at the home understood the concepts of the Act, such as encouraging people to make decisions for themselves. We observed that staff demonstrated that they could apply this to everyday life.

The provider had a program of activities both on an individual and group basis. This provided people with both social and emotional stimulation

16 / 17 March 2015

During a routine inspection

Signature House was last inspected on 9 December 2013 and found to be meeting all requirements in the areas inspected.

When we visited there no registered manager in post as the last manager had left on 18 February 2014. 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. However the provider had appointed a manager and an application to register this person had been made.

Signature House is located in Dorchester, Dorset. The home can accommodate a maximum of 48 people. Accommodation is provided over three floors and all bedrooms have ensuite facilities. At the time of the inspection there were 43 people living at the home. The home was divided into three separate areas, the first floor supporting people with moderate dementia care , the second floor for the care of people with nursing needs and the third floor supporting people with more complex mental health needs.

The provider had designated the responsibility for the cleaning of the home to an outside contractor. The home was not clean in all areas inspected. The kitchenettes located on each floor were not effectively cleaned. The food stored in these areas, such as sandwiches and pate were uncovered and undated. This put people at risk of unnecessary harm.

The provider had a system in place to ensure the suitability of new staff to work at the home. This system was not consistently applied to all new staff. We found that one recent employee had not had references taken up from their most recent care employee. This meant that all of the most current information available to the provider had not been used to check the suitability of this person to work at the home.

When people with enduring mental health issues, such as dementia, displayed challenging behaviour the staff did not consistently have documented guidance to enable them to support them safely. On the third floor we observed that staff did demonstrate that they had sufficient guidance and understanding to effectively support people with dementia. The provider had recently employed a member of staff to take the lead on developing staffs understanding of dementia and how to provide activities based on their individual needs. Whilst the staff knew people’s needs well, the records relating to people’s care and support were not always up to date and so they may not be able to provide care and support in the way people wished.

Most staff demonstrated a caring and compassionate approach to people living at the home but some improvements were necessary as we observed some staff did not always respond appropriately to people living at the home. People were offered choices at mealtimes such as where to sit and what to eat. A relative told us that the food on offer was generally very good saying, “I visit most days and there always seem to be enough choice and enough for people to eat, my husband has put on weight since coming here.”

There were sufficient suitably trained staff to meet people’s needs. The people we spoke with told us that, “the girls (staff) are lovely; they always help me and get me drinks when I want them”. Another person told us about recent improvements saying “there seems to be more staff around lately”. Relatives told us that they considered there were always staff around to help when required.

People told us they felt safe living at the home, they were aware of how to make a complaint. People told us that if there was an issue they would tell staff who would address this.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the quality of the service was regularly reviewed and improvements, some of these systems were still under development. The provider demonstrated that they had taken action and made improvements in the service offered and had a plan of continued improvements.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and assessments of people’s capacity had consistently been made. The staff at the home understood some of the concepts of the Act, such as encouraging people to make decisions for themselves. We observed that staff demonstrated that they could apply this to everyday life.

Staff told us they worked well as a team and enjoyed working at the home. They told us about the values and vision of the provider, one staff member told us, “I want to do something I am proud of; I know I will be able to achieve this here.”

We recommended that the provider looks at the activities provided to people with complex needs living at the home

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which correspond to regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the report.

9 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People or their representatives were involved in the planning and delivery of care. One person told us, 'I feel listened to here. It's easy to talk to the staff.'

People's care needs and risks were assessed and care was delivered to meet their needs. One person we spoke with said, 'I can't fault anything here. I'm happy here.' Another person we spoke with said, 'The staff are good here. I feel cared for.'

People were protected from harm as there were appropriate safeguarding procedures.

Staff were supported by the provider through appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.

The home had suitable systems to monitor the quality of service provided and to monitor the health, welfare and safety of the people at the home.

In this report the name Beverley Davies appears as a registered manager. They were not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. The location was being managed by Pearl Mumford. Beverley Davies name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.