Background to this inspection
Updated
19 June 2018
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 was 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.
This inspection took place on 8 and 9 May 2018 and the first day was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector and an expert by experience on the first day and one adult social care inspector on the second day. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.
Before the inspection, we had received a completed Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the PIR and other information we held about the service as part of our inspection. This included the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are reports of changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send CQC within required timescales. We contacted the local safeguarding and adult social services quality assurance improvement team who could comment about people's care.
During this inspection we carried out observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not communicate with us.
During the inspection we observed care and support, looked at records and spoke with staff. We spoke with nine people living at the home and two visiting relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, one of the deputy managers, three registered nurses, three care staff, physiotherapist, cleaner and kitchen assistant.
We reviewed a range of records about people's care and how the service was managed. We looked at individual care records and for seven people and sampled people’s medicine records. We also looked at recruitment, training and induction records for three staff, staffing rosters, staff meeting minutes, meeting minutes for people who lived at the home, maintenance contracts and quality assurance audits the registered manager had completed.
Updated
19 June 2018
The inspection took place on 8 and 9 May 2018 and the first day was unannounced.
Douglas House 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 provider is registered to accommodate up to 30 people. People living in the home have a range of needs which include complex physical nursing needs and learning disabilities. At the time of the inspection 27 people were living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
At the last inspection on 24 November 2015 we rated the service Good.
At this inspection on the 8 and 9 May 2018 we found the service remained Good.
This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.
Douglas House had been developed and designed prior to Building the Right Support and Registering the Right Support guidance being published. We found the home followed some of these values and principles. These values relate to people with learning disabilities living at the service being able to live an ordinary life.
People and relatives we spoke with told us the home was safe and they trusted the managers and staff. When we asked people if they felt safe at Douglas House comments included, “Oh yes I think so”, “Yes, without a doubt” and "It’s a very good care home. I’m very safe."
People and relatives told us staff were kind and caring. During the inspection there was a very happy, relaxed and pleasant atmosphere in the home. We observed the staff being kind and polite towards people. They were attentive when people asked for assistance and they addressed people in a caring way.
People's privacy and dignity was respected and staff ensured people were encouraged to maintain their independence and were involved and in control of their care.
People were protected from abuse and neglect. We found staff knew about risks to people and how to avoid potential harm. Risks related to people's care were assessed, recorded and reviewed. The management of risks from the building were also satisfactorily managed. Medicines were stored and administered safely.
We found appropriate numbers of staff were deployed to meet people's needs and had been recruited properly to make sure they were suitable to work with people.
The staff told us they felt well supported. They had the information and training they needed to care for people. The staff felt the service was well managed and had opportunities to discuss their work and any concerns they had with the registered manager and other senior staff.
People received care and support based around their individual needs and requirements. Care plans were person-centred and reviewed regularly. People were able to make choices about their day to day lives. There was a variety of activities for people to do and take part in and people were supported to pursue their own hobbies and interests. Complaints were fully investigated and responded to.
The home continued to be well led. The management team promoted open communication with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals involved in their care. Staff were clear what was expected of them, and expressed enthusiasm for their work at the home. The management team completed audits and checks to assess and improve the quality of the service people received at Douglas House.