Archived: Dowty House

Updated 20 April 2016

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 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 over three days on 9, 10 and 11 February 2016 and was unannounced. The last inspection of Dowty House by the Care Quality Commission was completed on 17 April 2014. At that time we found the service to be fully compliant in the areas inspected.

This inspection was carried out by one inspector and prior to visiting Dowty House we looked at the information we held about the service. This information included the statutory notifications that the provider had sent to the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Provider Information Record (PIR). A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send to us by law. The PIR is requested by us and asks the provider for key information about the service, tells us what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We spoke with local commissioners and reviewed their most recent report about the service.

During the inspection we spoke with four people who use the service, two visitors / relatives, 14 members of staff, the registered manager and a representative of the provider. We sought the views of one health care professional. Not every person living at Dowty House was able to express their views verbally. We therefore undertook a Short Observational Framework for Inspection session (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not tell us about their life in the home. We observed staff interactions with people, their relatives and each other throughout the inspection.

We also carried out a tour of the premises, observed medicine administration and observed two staff hand over meetings. We reviewed six care records, three staff recruitment files, training certificates and other records relating to the management of the home. These included audits, the service’s main staff training record, reports on the service’s progress to the board of trustees, the registered manager’s weekly reports to the provider, a satisfaction survey feedback report and minutes of staff meetings.

Updated 20 April 2016

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 9, 10 and 11 February 2016. Dowty House provides accommodation and care for up to 32 people. It predominantly cares for older people who have physical needs although some people live with dementia. It had a waiting list for admissions at the time of the inspection.

The provider had recently completed extensive refurbishment and in places had reconfigured spaces within the home to improve facilities for people. For example, this had provided some bedrooms with adjoining private shower / toilet facilities and other bedrooms with designated and private shower / toilet facilities along the same corridor. The main lounge had been fully refurbished and a smaller quiet lounge formed from an existing office. The main garden had been improved and an unused space off the main lounge turned into a sheltered courtyard style seating area. The registered manager explained the home was having a rest from refurbishment but a second phase was planned. This would see the refurbishment of further bedrooms, bathrooms and the dining room.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

People were happy, felt safe and felt cared for. People’s risks were identified and managed well and their care needs were met exceptionally well. People were cared for by staff that knew them really well and who had been very well trained to support people. Where at all possible people were involved in the planning of their care. If this was not possible people’s representatives were encouraged to be involved. People’s care plans were extensive and highly personalised which helped staff deliver the support people wanted and needed. There were enough staff on duty to be able to do this. For some people, this had resulted in real improvements to their health and abilities which in turn had meant people had become more independent. People had very good access to health care professionals when they needed this and their medicines were managed well.

Those who mattered to people such as family members and friends were welcomed and also supported as needed. Family involvement was encouraged and staff communicated well with people’s representatives, keeping them informed of any changes in their relative’s health or care. People were encouraged and supported to be part of the local community.

Staff were constantly looking for ideas on how to improve people’s quality of their life. People’s likes, dislikes, preferences and aspirations were explored with them. Staff worked hard to make sure, that where it were possible, people had opportunities to lead as full a life as possible. They made sure daily activities were tailored to meet people’s preferences and abilities. Staff made sure people had opportunities to enjoy themselves. People’s suggestions and ideas were sought and valued when it came to planning these opportunities.

Staff were extremely well supported and valued by the provider who invested well in their training and welfare. There was a strong sense of “family” and team work. Staff were proud of the work they did and were fully committed to ensuring people were at the centre of everything that took place at Dowty House.

There were effective quality monitoring arrangements in place which ensured a continued high standard of care and service. People’s feedback, including that of their visitors, of health care professionals and the staff was sought and their comments used to plan future improvement. People were able to raise their dissatisfaction or make a complaint and know this would be listened to. Issues raised were investigated and resolved where possible and reflected on to ensure they were not repeated.

The registered manager was a strong and experienced leader who had a clear vision about the direction of the service. She was highly committed to improving people’s lives and ensuring people had the best care they could receive. She therefore expected high standards from the staff who were as committed to these values as the registered manager was. The registered manager and her senior staff were very much part of the overall care team in Dowty House. They were very involved in people’s care, visible and approachable. Staff in Dowty House saw themselves as part of one large extended family which included the people who lived there and the provider.