Donwell House

Donwell House is a care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 63 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 52 people living at the home. Bedrooms are situated on two floors with people having access to communal lounges and dining areas.

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

At the last inspection we found improvements were required to ensure people received person-centred care. At this inspection improvements to care planning and reviews had been sustained, with people’s individualities and interests factored in to care planning and activities provision. Activities were meaningful and had a positive impact on people’s wellbeing. Sufficient improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 9.

At the last inspection of the service the provider had failed to ensure governance systems were sufficiently effective to monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Since the last inspection the registered manager and leadership team had made a range of improvements. Quality assurance and audit processes were robust and action plans adhered to. Strong links had been made with community groups and interactions with external health and social care teams were positive, with consistently strong feedback. Sufficient improvement had been made at this inspection and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17.

At the last inspection we found improvements were required regarding meal choices and standards. Improvements to menu planning, meal preparation and inclusion of people to value and respect their choices had been implemented since the last inspection. Feedback was consistently positive regarding the standard and choice of meals and we observed positive and patient interactions during lunchtime. Sufficient improvement had been made at this inspection.

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

Rating at last inspection and update

The service was rated requires improvement at the last inspection (published 30 September 2019). Following the inspection, the provider submitted an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

We completed this focused inspection to make sure they had followed their action plan and to confirm they now met legal requirements. This report covers our findings in relation to those three key domains: effective, responsive and well-led.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are also conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes. The Safe domain also therefore contains information around assurances we gained from the registered manager regarding infection control and prevention.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key domains not looked at during this inspection were used in calculating the overall rating for this inspection. The overall rating for the service therefore has improved to good based on the findings at this inspection.

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

Follow up

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

Donwell House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 46 people aged 65 and over. The service can support up to 63 people.

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

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, MCA assessments and best interests decisions had not been made for all restrictions placed on people.

Care plans were not written in a person-centred way; they lacked sufficient detail to guide staff about the care people needed.

People and relatives gave mixed feedback about the meals provided. The new manager took decisive action to address people’s concerns and to address other issues, including the quality of meals and poor kitchen hygiene.

We received very positive feedback about the new management team; they had been proactive in assessing the current position of the home and identifying the actions required to drive further improvement. The new manger was developing a structured approach to quality assurance.

People and relatives told us the home was safe. Staff knew about the procedures to keep people safe, such as safeguarding and whistle blowing. Previous safeguarding concerns were dealt with appropriately.

There were enough staff to keep people safe. People said staff responded quickly if they needed help. People were supported to access external health services.

People received their medicines when they were due.

The new manager had improved the systems for analysing incidents and accidents. Checks and risk assessments were completed to help keep people and the environment safe.

New staff were recruited safely, and all staff were well supported and received the training they needed.

People's needs had been assessed to identify their care needs. This was used to develop care plans.

People told us they were well cared for. They also said staff were kind and caring.

People could participate in a range of activities. The manager was reviewing the programme to ensure it met people’s needs and interests.

Complaints were fully investigated; action was taken to address concerns.

There were opportunities for people and staff to provide feedback.

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 requires improvement (published 7 November 2018). The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last three consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

You can see what action we have asked the provider to take at the end of this full report.

Enforcement

We have identified breaches in relation to person-centred care and good governance at this inspection.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Donwell 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. Donwell House provides care for up to 63 people some of whom have nursing needs and/or may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 41 people were living at the service. The service comprised of four units, two residential care units and two nursing units.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service in June 2018. A breach of legal requirements was found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to the breach.

We undertook this focused inspection to check that they had followed their plan and to confirm that they now met legal requirements. This report only covers our findings in relation to those requirements. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Donwell House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

The service had introduced a number of supporting documents to ensure a safe environment was maintained. The registered manager had reviewed people’s care records and identified risks had detailed risk assessments in place.

People’s medicines continued to be managed safely. Enough staff were deployed to meet the care and support needs of the people living at Donwell House. The provider collated and analysed safeguarding concerns and accidents and incidents to identify any trends or patterns. Lessons learnt was cascaded to all the provider’s services to drive improvement.

People were encouraged to maintain links with the local community. The service supported people to access activities in the local community including visiting places and shopping.

The provider had implemented additional governance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. The service regularly consulted with people living at the service, relatives and staff.

The registered manager had a good oversight of the running of the service and was knowledgeable about people’s care and support needs.

Donwell House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Donwell House provides care for up to 63 people some of whom have nursing needs and/or may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 44 people were living at the home. The home is made up of four units, two residential care units and two nursing units. The home had recently had a change in directorship.

A registered manager was in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 6 and 7 April 2017, the service was rated requires improvement. At this inspection we found the service remained rated as requires improvement.

The home did not always ensure that people had a safe environment. Items which posed a risk of harm to people were easily accessible.

Identified risks had not always been mitigated against. Medicines records we viewed were accurate and up to date. People received their medicines in their preferred way. PRN (as required medicines) protocols were not always in place or lacked detail. Protocols for the administration of covert medicines were not followed.

A robust recruitment and selection process in place. There were sufficient staff deployed in the home to meet the needs of people. The home had systems in place to ensure people were protected from abuse. Staff had completed a range of training and received regular supervisions.

Personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP's) were in place to ensure people were able to evacuate the premises in an emergency.

Staff respected people's privacy and promoted their independence. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care and support. People’s confidential and sensitive records were not always protected.

Menus were not always accessible to enable people to make an informed choice. People were supported to have a balanced diet. Kitchen staff catered for people’s preferences.

Care plans contained limited information and did not always reflect people's needs and preferences. Some information was inaccurate.

We saw evidence in care plans of cooperation between care staff and healthcare professionals including occupational therapists and GPs. Follow up advice was not always sought in a timely manner.

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

The home had activity staff on duty each day, including evenings and weekends, to support with activities. People were supported to supported to maintain links to their local community and to take part in various activities. Relatives and visitors were made welcome in the home.

People were provided with information on how to make a complaint. The registered manager promoted an open culture within the home.

Quality assurance systems were not always effective. However, the new director had a strong commitment to drive improvement within the home and had introduced new quality assurance processes.

Donwell House provides care for up to 63 people some of whom have nursing needs and/or may be living with dementia. There are two wings at Donwell House; one wing is made up of two residential care units. The other wing has two nursing units.

At the time of the inspection there were 46 people using the service, many of whom were living with a dementia. 28 people had been assessed as needing nursing care.

During an inspection in March 2016 we found multiple breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 specifically Regulations 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18. Donwell House was rated inadequate overall and placed into special measures.

We last inspected Donwell House on the 17 and 18 October 2016 and found the provider had breached a number of regulations we inspected against. Specifically we found evidence of continued breaches of regulations 9, 12, 17 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We also found the provider to be in breach of regulation 10. Donwell House was continued to be rated inadequate and remained in special measures

Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

A registered manager was registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection. They had been in post since 3 October 2016 and registered since 28 March 2017.

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.

During this inspection we found improvements had been made. This service has been in Special Measures. Services that are in Special Measures are kept under review and inspected again within six months. We expect services to make significant improvements within this timeframe. During this inspection the service demonstrated to us that improvements have been made and is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is now out of Special Measures.

Governance and quality assurance systems had been introduced and had been effective in driving improvements. In order to ensure consistent good practice over time the systems and processes that had been introduced needed to be embedded.

Risk assessments in relation to the premises did not include dates or signatures so we were unable to make a judgement as to the timeliness of these documents. Risk assessments in relation to people, such as mobility, skin integrity and choking were in place and identified control measures to minimise risk. One person who had a diagnosis of epilepsy did not have a protocol in place to guide staff as to the action to take should the person experience a seizure.

Care plans had improved since the last inspection, however we found one had not been updated following a change in need; another person’s contained inconsistencies in relation to their nutritional needs and another person’s lacked detail in relation to support with mobility.

Some mental capacity assessments were not decision specific and we did not see any capacity assessments or best interest decision in relation to the use of wheelchair lap belts. For other restrictions, such as bed rails, these were in place and detailed risk assessments had been completed to inform decision making. We have made a recommendation about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff training had improved however some staff were yet to attend training in moving and handling, safeguarding, mental capacity and deprivation of liberty safeguards and challenging behaviour.

Safeguarding concerns, accidents, incidents and complaints were all recorded and investigated. Action was taken to minimise the likelihood of reoccurrence and analyses were completed to identify trends and learn lessons.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe at Donwell House and were supported by staff who were caring, compassionate, respectful and able to meet their needs. Observations confirmed staff had warm, engaging relationships with people. People were supported appropriately and discreetly.

Activities were available seven days a week and people commented on the improvements that had been made. Of particular note was the joy and comfort people received from the pets as therapy dog (PAT dog) who worked alongside the nurse manager. People were often heard asking when the dog was coming to see them and they clearly enjoyed the opportunity of sharing time and affection with the dog.

The safety of premises, particularly in relation to fire safety, had improved. A new fire alarm system had been installed and staff told us about the system and the training they had received. A handyman, with a background in property maintenance, had been employed and was completing necessary health and safety checks.

The storage, recording and administration of medicines had improved. Care plans were in place and contained detail as to the importance of safe administration of medicines. Medicines profiles detailed person centred information such as how people liked to take their medicines.

New staff had been recruited safely, using appropriate vetting tools to ensure they met the requirements to support vulnerable adults. Staffing levels had been assessed using a dependency tool. It was noted the actual staffing levels exceeded the levels indicated on the dependency tool.

Inductions were in place and staff were positive that this gave them a good basis for supporting people in an appropriate way to ensure their needs were met. Staff told us they felt well supported and we saw that supervisions were held regularly in order to support staff. Annual appraisals were in the process of being completed for relevant staff.

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

People’s nutritional needs were assessed and referrals were made to dieticians and speech and language therapy as appropriate. Care plans were in place and nutritional monitoring occurred for people who were assessed as being at risk and needing additional support.

Referrals were made to external healthcare professionals and we saw involvement from community psychiatric nurses, district nurses, chiropody, dentists and GPs.

People and relatives told us they knew how to complain and said they were confident that action would be taken if they raised any concerns.

Everyone we spoke with, including people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals said improvements had been made to Donwell House.

Donwell House provides care for up to 63 people some of whom have nursing needs and/or may be living with dementia. There are two wings at Donwell House; one wing is made up of two residential care units. The other wing has two nursing units.

At the time of the inspection there were 53 people using the service, many of whom were living with a dementia. 29 people had been assessed as needing nursing care.

We last inspected Donwell House on the 9, 10 and 14 March 2016 and found the provider had breached a number of regulations we inspected against. Specifically the provider had breached Regulations 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The registered manager had failed to demonstrate the necessary competence, skills and experience to manage the carrying on of a regulated activity. The provider did not do everything that was reasonably practicable to make sure people using the service received personalised care and treatment that was appropriate, met their needs and reflected their preferences. Care and treatment was not provided in a safe way. Assessment planning and delivery of care was not based on appropriate risk assessment. Not everything was done to reasonably and practicably mitigate risks. Medicines were not managed in a proper and safe way. Policies and procedures were not followed appropriately. People were not being protected from neglect and improper treatment. Systems and processes were not established and operated effectively to prevent abuse, neglect and improper treatment of people. The nutrition and hydration needs of service users was not being met. A variety of nutritious, appetising food was not available to meet people’s needs. Up to date assessments for nutrition and hydration needs were not being followed. Systems and processes were not established and operated effectively to ensure compliance. Systems did not assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. They did not assess, monitor and mitigate risks. Accurate, complete and contemporaneous records of care and treatment were not maintained. Feedback was sought but not acted upon to improve quality. The provider did not ensure audit and governance systems were effective. Staff did not have appropriate training to enable them to carry out the duties they were employed to perform. Staff had not received regular appraisals of their performance.

During this inspection we found evidence of continued breaches of regulation. Specifically regulations 9, 12, 17 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. We also found the provider to be in breach of regulation 10. Full information about CQC's regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

A registered manager was not registered with the Care Quality Commission at the time of the inspection. A manager was in post but they had only started the role on 3 October 2016.

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.

Premises safety was a concern. There were duplicate fire zones and room numbers within the building. The actions identified from a fire risk assessment completed in April 2016 had not been rectified, this included action in relation to an inadequate fire detection system and inadequate training for the evacuation of people. A service user evacuation register was out of date and the fire log book contained 29 personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) when there were 53 people resident in the building.

Routine checks on fire and premises safety had not been completed in a regular and timely manner. At the time of the inspection there was no evidence of an in-date gas safety certificate or in date certificates of lifting operations and lifting equipment regulations (LOLER).

Risks had not always been identified and mitigated against. For example for people who had swallowing difficulties there had been no assessments completed in relation to the risk of choking. Where people could display behaviour that challenged others there was no assessment of risk.

Care records contained conflicting information, there were no specific and detailed strategies for staff to follow in relation to how to support people or how people wanted to be supported and care records had not been updated to reflect changes in people’s needs.

Decision specific mental capacity assessment and best interest decisions had not been completed for the use of potentially restrictive care practices such as bed rails and wheelchair lap belts. Where mental capacity assessments had been completed they were not decision specific, did not relate to restrictive practice and had been completed by either one nurse or one senior care staff member. The mental capacity act (2005) code of practice was not being followed.

Medicines were not managed in a safe way. There was conflicting information in care records about the form of people’s medicines, for example crushed medicines and liquid medicines. There was no evidence of mental capacity assessments, best interest decisions or specific care plans in relation to people whose GP had stated they could have medicines administered covertly. Protocols for the administration of ‘as and when required’ medicines were often not in place, and where they were in place they lacked specific detail to guide staff on when to administer the medicine.

A box of homely medicines were available in the treatment room, however the deputy manager told us they were not used.

The temperature of the treatment room often exceeded recommended guidelines which meant the effectiveness of some medicines may have been compromised.

Staffing levels were being maintained by the use of agency nurses and care staff. Staff had not received relevant training, supervision or appraisals to ensure they had the necessary skills and competence. There was no systematic approach to determining the number of staff and the range of skills staff needed to meet people’s needs and keep them safe.

There was limited engagement and interaction from some staff during mealtimes. We observed one person was supported by three different staff during one meal, another staff member was observed to be touching a person’s mouth with a spoonful of food prompting them to open their mouth whilst they were still eating.

Records in relation to the management of regulated activity, such as safeguarding’s, accidents, incidents and complaints were not available pre August 2016.

There was a continued failure to ensure an effective quality assurance and governance procedure was in place to monitor, assess and drive improvement in the quality of the service provided. An improvement plan completed by the provider had not identified the concerns noted throughout this inspection, even though it stated that some areas requiring improvement had been completed.

Some staff had warm and caring relationships with people and treated people in a kind, caring and sensitive way.

Staff were recruited appropriately and necessary background checks completed.

Some improvements had been made to nutrition and hydration; however food and fluid charts were not detailed and did not record the amount of food or fluid people needed to aim for each day. Nor did they detail the specific dietary needs of each person.

We saw people were supported to access health care professionals however there was not always evidence that information had been followed up on. For example, a GP who had been contacted about a person’s medicine management.

Activities coordinators were in post and there were various activities available for people.

Staff had confidence in the new manager to drive improvement. Staff felt listened to and supported and thought improvements were being made.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service remains in ‘special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

Donwell House provides care for up to 63 people some of whom have nursing needs and/or may be living with dementia. There are two wings at Donwell House; one wing is made up of two residential care units. The other wing has two nursing units.

At the time of the inspection there were 57 people using the service; 30 of whom needed nursing care.

A registered manager was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Medicines were not managed in a safe way. Protocols were in place for ‘as and when required’ medicines however they did not contain specific instructions for staff to follow in relation to dosage, time between medicine administration and indicators that a person may need their medicine.

The recording of transdermal patch applications was not robust, nor was the recording in relation to topical medicine applications, such as prescribed creams.

Risk assessments were completed but did not effectively assess and mitigate the risks to the health, safety and welfare of people. Some risks had not been assessed.

People were not safeguarded from the risks of receiving improper care and treatment because care plans and risk assessments were not sufficiently accurate and up to date to ensure care and treatment was appropriate to their needs.

Care plans were not sufficiently detailed, accurate or up to date to ensure people received person centred care and treatment appropriate to their needs.

People were unhappy with the variety of meals offered to them and they said meals were not appetising.

Staff were not effectively following care plans in relation to monitoring people’s nutrition and hydration needs; specifically with regards to monitoring people’s weight.

Emergency plans were in place, however personal emergency evacuation plans and the service user evacuation register did not contain accurate information in relation to people’s needs and the equipment they needed or used, such as oxygen therapy.

Quality assurance and governance procedures were not operated effectively to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. Identified actions were not followed up and re-audits were not completed to ensure improvements had been made.

Feedback from people and their relatives was sought but it was not fully acted upon to improve the quality of the service people received.

Staff had not attended refresher training in practical moving and handling skills, nor had they attended care planning and risk assessment training.

A high number of staff had not received an annual appraisal.

Safeguarding alerts and concerns and accidents and incidents were recorded and reported to the appropriate professionals. Analysis was completed for any trends and lessons learnt were discussed.

A dependency tool was used to assess the number of staff needed to provide care and support for people. The registered manager was increasing staff levels based on the outcome of this tool.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place, which included disclosure and barring service checks.

Compliance with the completion of ELearning was high and all staff had regular supervision with their line manager. Staff told us they felt well supported.

Applications to deprive people of their liberty, known as deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) had been submitted to the supervising body and where they had been authorised associated care plans were in place.

People and their relatives told us staff were kind, caring and compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.

A range of activities were on offer and people and their relatives were actively encouraged to share ideas for events and to enjoy activities together. Community presence was very evident with people being involved in community events in the local area.

Formal complaints were recorded and responded to.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent

enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action to prevent the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration.

For adult social care services the maximum time for being in special measures will usually be no more than 12 months. If the service has demonstrated improvements when we inspect it and it is no longer rated as inadequate for any of the five key questions it will no longer be in special measures.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report. This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

Where staff had identified a potential risk, either during the initial assessment or after admission, a risk assessment had been completed to ensure people remained safe. We found the provider assessed people, using recognised tools, against a range of potential risks. For example, the risks of poor nutrition, skin damage and falls.

The provider had systems in place to ensure people received their medication safely and in a timely manner, by trained and competent staff.

The provider had appropriate recruitment and selection processes in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work with the people who used the service. This included checking applicants did not have any criminal convictions that may prevent them from working with vulnerable people and asking for references from previous employers.

Is the service effective?

Information gathered during the initial assessment of people's needs was used to develop detailed care plans. We found care plans clearly identified people’s needs and potential risks and specific aims and objectives for people to aim for. For example, for one person the aim was to provide support with personal hygiene in a respectful and dignified manner.

We spoke with four people who used the service. They told us they received good care. People’s comments included: “I get everything I need”; “I get good care”; and, “I think it is great here.” People told us that staff sometimes came to chat but they were very busy. We spoke with four family members. They said they were satisfied with their relative’s care. Some family members said they had not seen their relative’s care plans and felt people could have more one to one time with staff. Their comments included: “The nurses are good”; “The care is pretty good”; and, “My relative gets good care, I am very happy.”

From our observations we saw that staff followed the guidance within people’s care plans. For example, we observed staff transferring people from their wheelchair using the specialist equipment and techniques described in their care plans.

Is the service caring?

People’s care records showed that staff had completed a social profile and a ‘This is my life booklet.’ These documents contained detailed information about people’s life histories, such as previous employment, religion and beliefs, favourite memories and likes and dislikes. This meant staff had access to detailed information to help them better understand people’s needs.

We observed care being delivered throughout our inspection and undertook specific observations over a lunch time and in the lounge area. We found that staff interacted positively with people and were attentive, gentle and kind. We observed people for 40 minutes and saw that people had very little interaction with staff. We saw that this improved significantly following intervention from the manager when staff then spent one to one time with people chatting and offering manicures.

Is the service responsive?

People had regular input from various professionals appropriate to their needs, such as dietitians, speech and language therapists, specialist nurses and GPs.

Care plans were evaluated each month to ensure they remained up to date and reflected people’s current needs. We saw examples within people’s care records of action taken to respond to people’s changing needs, such as referring them to various health professionals for advice and guidance, including specialist nurses, speech and language therapists and dietitians.

Is the service well-led?

The manager reviewed staffing levels to ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. We saw the review included an analysis of people’s dependency levels. These were compared to previous reviews, which highlighted how dependencies within the home were changing over time. The analysis also considered other factors such as accidents/incidents, safeguarding alerts, complaints, skin damage and weight loss.

We found the provider consulted with people who used the service, relatives and professionals to gather their views about the service provided at Donwell House. We viewed the completed questionnaires from the most recent consultation with residents and relatives. Most of the people who responded gave positive comments about the service. Comments included: “I am happy living here”; I am happy at the moment”; and, “No complaints at all.” We found that the findings from the consultation had been analysed and an action plan developed.

The provider had an effective system of quality audits in place to identify gaps in care records, including medication records, and take appropriate action to address these gaps. However, we found there was an on-going problem with the quality of certain records.

People and family members said they were happy with the care and they did not raise any concerns with us. They commented: “I would feel comfortable talking to all of the staff”; “I have been here six weeks and I have loved every minute of it”; “I have no concerns”; and, “We have had a very positive experience.”