You are here

Reports


Inspection carried out on 26 October 2017

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 3 April 2014

During a routine inspection

Danescourt is a care home for people with learning disability. It is registered to take eight people and is in Doncaster. The service is run by Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust.

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008. It was also part of the first testing phase of the new inspection process CQC is introducing for adult social care services.

Our inspection team was made up of an inspector, an Expert by Experience and a CQC Pharmacist Inspector. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. A Pharmacist Inspector is a qualified pharmacist, employed by CQC who specialises in the safety of medicines.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, the staff supporting people, from looking at records and our observations.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

The people we spoke with told us they felt happy and safe living at Danescourt. We saw that staff treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity.

People were kept safe and involved in making decisions about taking risks in their lives. People’s plans included risk assessments. These told the staff about the risks for each person and how to manage and minimise these risks. People’s needs had been assessed and their care and given in a way that suited their needs, without placing unnecessary restrictions on them.

The arrangements for handling medicines were safe and people received their medicines as prescribed.

People who used the service and people who mattered to them, such as a close family member, had been encouraged to make their views known about their care. An independent advocate also sometimes visited people to help with this. An advocate is someone who speaks up on people’s behalf. People and those who mattered to them had contributed to their assessments and care plans, about how they should be given care and support. People’s care plans had a good level of information about how each person should be supported, to make sure their needs were met. This included their needs around their diet and their health.

The staff were well trained, skilled and experienced.They had caring attitudes and we saw they encouraged people to be as independent as they could be.

People told us the staff were kind. One person said they loved all the staff. We saw people had the privacy they needed. People did the activities they were interested in and we saw that staff supported them to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

People were encouraged to share any concerns and complaints they had. They said they told the staff if they had any worries. People didn’t have any complaints to tell us about and were very happy living at Danescourt.One person said they were very proud of their house and very proud of the staff.

People had reviews and service user meetings and were helped to fill in feedback questionnaires. They showed that people’s views were respected and acted upon. At a recent meeting people had suggested they got a digital camera, so they could take photographs of themselves and the activities they did, and copy them on to a computer. This had been agreed and an internet connection, laptop computers, printer and camera had been ordered. The registered manager said the camera would make it easier to include pictures for the menus and for people’s care plans, to suit each person’s communication needs.

People had a chance to say what they thought about the service and the service learned from its mistakes, using complaint and incidents as an opportunity for learning or improvement. There was good leadership at all levels and the registered manager promoted a positive culture that was person centred, open, inclusive and empowering.

Inspection carried out on 25 November 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited the home there were three people who used the service present. We spoke with one of the people who used the service.

A person who used the service told us staff asked what they liked and listened to what they said. We found that where people had the capacity to do so they were asked for their consent. Where people did not have the capacity to consent the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

A person who used the service told us they were happy with the food and refreshment they received. We saw evidence of people being given choices as to what they wished to eat. A nutritious and balanced diet was made available.

A person who used the service told us they were happy with the standard of cleanliness of the home. We found there were systems in place to manage the prevention and control of infection.

A person who used the service told us there were enough staff on duty. We found there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

A person who used the service told us they had no concerns about the service offered. We found there was a complaints procedure in place and staff were aware of their responsibilities to report complaints made to them so they could be formally investigated.

Inspection carried out on 6 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two people who used the service.

They told us their independence was respected, they felt safe and were happy with the care they received.

They also told us that staff seemed well trained and they were asked for their opinions on the care they received.