You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 26 October 2017. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and one hospitals (mental health) inspector. At the time of the inspection there were two people using the service.

Our last inspection of this service took place in April 2014. No breaches of legal requirements were identified and the service was rated Good. The rating was not published, because the service was inspected as part of first testing phase for the new inspection process CQC was introducing at that time.

At the time of this inspection Danescourt was registered to provide accommodation and care for up to eight people with learning disabilities. The service had been dormant for a long period and had been redesigned to provide a specialist five bedded service for male service users, transferring from forensic hospital placements. The service re-opened in May 2017. At the time of the inspection there were two people using the service.

The service had a manager, who had been employed by the trust, managing similar services for several years and who had run the home since Danescourt had reopened. They had applied to be registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People said they felt safe and the staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of safeguarding people from abuse, and of what action they would take if they suspected abuse. There was a policy about whistle blowing and the manager told us staff were supported to question practice and whistle blowers were protected.

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people were safe. The individual plans we looked at included risk assessments which identified any risk associated with people’s lifestyles, care and support. Although there was room to improve some written records.

People’s medicines were well managed.

We found there were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

Staff were provided with appropriate training to help them meet people’s needs.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the staff we spoke with were aware of the Act. However, there was a need to further develop some risk assessments.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. The people we spoke with told us they liked the food and were involved in choosing and planning their menus, shopping and cooking their meals.

People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and received on-going healthcare support. They received support from other professionals and healthcare services when required.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual support plans. We saw staff were aware of people’s needs and the best ways to support them, and there was an emphasis on maintaining and increasing people’s independence.

The manager and all the staff we spoke with and saw supporting people had a caring approach and treated people with respect and dignity.

The service was for people with challenging needs and behaviour and staff successfully provided a very positive and calm atmosphere, and were very person centred and responsive in their approach.

People’s individual plans included information about their family and others who were important to them and they were supported to maintain contact. We saw that people took part in lots of activities and events in the home and in the local community and that this depended on the choices and individual interests of each person.

The service had a complaints procedure and people k

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was safe.

The staff we spoke with knew how to protect people.

Care and support was planned and delivered in a way that ensured people were safe. We saw people’s plans included relevant areas of risk.

The service had arrangements in place for recruiting staff safely and there were enough staff with the right skills, knowledge and experience to meet people’s needs.

There were appropriate arrangements in place to manage people’s medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was effective.

The staff received core training necessary to fulfil their roles along with other, relevant training, specific to people’s needs.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the staff we spoke with were aware of the Act. However, there was a need to further develop assessments in some areas.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet.

People were supported to maintain good health, have access to healthcare services and receive on-going healthcare support.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was caring.

People and visiting relatives described the staff as caring.

Staff we spoke with were aware of people’s needs and the best way to support them.

People’s diverse needs were taken into account and they were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and support.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual plans.

We saw that people took part in some activities of their choice on a weekly basis and were supported to maintain family relationships and friendships.

The service had a complaints procedure and people knew how to raise concerns. The procedure was available in an easy read version.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 January 2018

The service was well led.

We saw various audits had taken place to make sure policies and procedures were being followed and the service was delivered safely.

The manager told us the registered provider sent out satisfaction surveys and the next batch of surveys was due to be sent to all stakeholders.

Staff we spoke with felt the service was well led and they were supported by a manager who was approachable and listened to them.