Dial House Nursing and Residential Home

Updated 30 April 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 8 April 2021 and was announced. The inspection was announced prior to us entering the home, so we could ensure that measures were in place to support an inspection and manage any infection control risks.

Updated 30 April 2021

This inspection of Dial House Nursing and Residential Home took place on 14 January 2019 and was unannounced. The service was last inspected in September 2016.

Dial House Nursing and Residential Care Home is a ‘care home.’ Dial house Residential and Nursing Home provides support to older people and younger adults who are living with dementia, mental health, a physical disability or a sensory impairment. The service is a large building split over two floors with communal areas people can use for activities. The service also has four ‘respite beds’ to support people who are transitioning from hospital. On the day of our inspection 41 people were using the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service was safe. Systems and processes were in place to protect people from harm and abuse. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed to mitigate the likelihood of harm. There were enough numbers of staff on shift to support people and staff had necessary pre-employment checks before starting work at the service. People were supported to take their medicines safely. The home was clean and welcoming and systems were in place to promote good infection control.

The service was effective. Thorough assessments of people’s needs were completed before they used the service. Staff had sufficient training and knowledge to support people effectively. People were supported to live healthy lives and had access to health professionals if they needed them. People were supported to eat and drink according to their preferences and support needs. The premises and equipment were designed to meet people’s needs. 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 service was caring. People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. People felt able to, and were supported, to make choices about the care they received. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted. Staff knew people they were supporting well and had built caring relationships with them.

The service was responsive. People received personalised care that met their individual support needs. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes were taken in to account and actioned with regards to their care and support. Complaints were recorded and responded to appropriately. People were supported with privacy and dignity at the end of their lives.

The service was not always well-led. Systems, processes and audits needed further development to monitor the quality of the service. Audits of medication were not effective at finding potential errors. The level of supervision of staff needed to be more frequent to ensure that they remained competent in their job roles. There was a new manager employed by the service who had identified the need to improve governance systems. The manager had started to get feedback from people, relatives and staff to improve the service. The manager and nominated individual were committed to improving the service and had plans in place to achieve this. People and the staff team were positive about the impact the new manager was having on the service.