We carried out a review of the data available to us about Danecroft on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Danecroft, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• Relatives and friends were encouraged to visit their family members at the home. Processes were in place for visitors to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19. These included providing a negative lateral flow test (LFT) and proof of COVID-19 vaccination.
• Staff had received training in the safe use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and were observed wearing this correctly. The service had adequate supply of PPE and provided this to staff and visitors whilst at the home.
• Regular COVID-19 testing was completed by staff, residents and essential care givers in line with government guidance. A record of the test results had been maintained by the manager.
• Risk assessments had been completed for all people and staff and where required measures had been put in place to mitigate risk to health.
• The care home was clean and had no mal odours. Enhanced cleaning had been completed of frequently touched areas.
• Relatives told us the staff contacted them promptly to provide updates of changes to government guidance relating to visiting and of any impact this would have directly to them.
• People had been supported to maintain contact with family and friends during the COVID-19 lockdowns through use of telephone and video calls.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ People who tested positive for COVID 19 were cohorted in one area of the home to minimise the risk of the infection spreading. Staff had available Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and were allocated to work on specific units. The provider ensured that additional PPE was available for staff to give extra protection when they had to work in different units in case of staff shortages.
¿ The service was closed to visitors at the time of the inspection, however when people received visits from relatives they were protected from the risk of infection. . The provider had created a room with glass parting and speakers were used so that conversations could be held between people and relatives. Having a safe barrier people could spend more time in private with their visitors.
¿ The provider had policies, procedures and contingency plans in place to respond promptly and maintain safe staffing levels in case of an outbreak. Risk to people were assessed and their needs prioritised to ensure every scenario of staff shortages was planned for and people were safe.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Danecroft is a care home which provides care and support for up to 33 people living with various health conditions. Some of the people were living with dementia. The service is spread over two floors, providing single bedrooms and communal areas for people on the ground floor. 30 people were being supported by the service at the time of the inspection.
People's experience of using this service:
People and relatives' feedback was extremely positive and complimentary about the care people received. They all commented positively about the safety, effectiveness and responsiveness of the support people received. There was evidence people achieved excellent care outcomes and relative’s comments about the service supported this.
Everyone said the staff were very caring and passionate about creating a homely, inclusive and happy atmosphere for people living at the service. Staff told us there was a ‘family atmosphere’ which promoted mutual compassion and care. Care was provided in a compassionate way. Staff had respectful, caring and friendly relationships with people they supported. Staff always upheld people's dignity and privacy, and they promoted their independence.
Relatives said the service was exceptional at promoting a caring environment for everyone, including staff. One relative beautifully summed this up when they said, “This is an excellent service and I can give them five stars. They’re absolutely brilliant.”
The provider had introduced many innovative ways to ensure people received the best possible care outcomes. People’s safety, wellbeing and happiness were at the top of the provider's priorities.
The service met the characteristics of Outstanding rating in four key questions of effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Safe was rated Good.
There were well planned and effective processes to ensure people were safe. People were protected from harm by staff who were trained to identify and report concerns. People were safe because potential risks to their health and wellbeing had been managed extremely well. There were enough staff to support people safely. People were supported well to take their medicines. Lessons were learnt from incidents to prevent recurrence. Staff followed effective processes to prevent the spread of infections.
The provider worked extremely hard to ensure people received effective care to meet their needs. People were supported by very skilled and knowledgeable staff. The provider ensured staff practice was supported by good practice guidance so that people achieved good care outcomes. Collaborative working with other care agencies was central to the good care provided to people.
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.
People received exceptionally personalised care and support which met their needs, reflected their preferences and promoted their wellbeing. People felt they mattered and the service valued relatives’ contributions to discussions about people’s care. The provider was listened to suggestions, concerns and complaints. They used this information to continually improve the service.
There was a positive, open and inclusive culture within the service. Staff roles and responsibilities were clear, and staff were supported and encouraged to use creative and individualised methods to support people to achieve their personal goals. The provider’s values were reflected in the way staff interacted with everyone and how they supported people. The provider’s quality monitoring processes were robust and they evidenced what they did to continually improve the service.
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 good (published 03 March 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People using the service felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and felt confident in how to report them.
People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be in a safe manner. Staff knew how to manage risks to promote people’s safety, and balanced these against people’s rights to take risks and remain independent.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs. Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service. Staff were not offered employment until satisfactory checks had been completed. Staff received an induction process and on-going training. They had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people. They were supported with regular supervisions.
Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people. Staff gained consent before supporting people.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required to enable people to access a balanced diet. There was access to drinks and snacks throughout the day.
People were supported to access a variety of health professional when required, including opticians and doctors, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well. People and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
People were supported to follow their interests and join in activities.
People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place and accessible to all. Complaint had been responded to appropriately.
Quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.
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 support this practice.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
The inspection took place 15 December 2014 and it was unannounced.
Danecroft is a residential care home which accommodates up to 33 older people. On the day of our visit there were 30 people using the service.
There was a registered manager. 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.
People felt safe living at the service. It was evident from talking with staff that they were aware of what they considered to be abuse and how to report this.
Staff knew how to use risk assessments to keep people safe alongside supporting them to be as independent as possible.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.
Recruitment processes were robust. New staff had undertaken the providers induction programme and training to allow them to support people confidently.
Medicines were stored, administered and handled safely.
Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of individual people they supported. People were supported to make choices around their care and daily lives.
Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when assisting people.
Staff always gained consent before supporting people.
There were policies and procedures in place in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff knew how to use them to protect people who were unable to make decisions for themselves.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required. Catering staff knew who required a special diet and this was taken into account.
People had access to a variety of health care professionals if required to make sure they received on-going treatment and care.
People were treated with kindness and compassion by the staff, and spending time with them on activities of their choice.
People and their relatives were involved in making decisions and planning their care, and their views were listened to and acted upon.
Staff to treated people with dignity and respect.
There was a complaints procedure in place which had been used effectively.
People were complimentary about the registered manager and staff. It was obvious from our observations that staff, people who used the service and the registered manager had good relationships. The provider was available and visited the service often.
We saw that effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvements.
The provision of meals and mealtimes was flexible and steps were taken to ensure that people had the meal of their choice. We saw that people's nutritional needs were assessed and the necessary steps taken to provide fortified and nutritious food.
There was a safe medication system which was administered by staff who were trained to do so.
We found that the staff team were trained to care for older people and had received training on dementia care. We observed that staff approached people respectfully and encouraged a lively atmosphere. We observed activities such as people playing chair based basketball which was extremely popular. Each person's efforts were valued and the activity was positive and inclusive of all. Staff told us they felt supported working at the home by the management team and enjoyed working to support the people that lived there.
There was a robust system in place to manage complaints. People we spoke with said they knew how to complain and were confident any concerns would be dealt with. No complaints had been made in the last year.
We observed staff supporting people in a way which promoted their dignity, particularly at times when people were supported with their mobility or to have their meals. We also heard staff supporting people in a kind and respectful manner. Staff explained to people what they were going to do prior to providing support.
During our observations we noted that the level of interactions that staff had with people was variable. People who demanded attention through calling out to staff, or through their behaviour, received a higher level of interaction from staff. Those people who were passive received a much lower level of interaction.
However, we also observed some very positive communication and interaction between staff and people living in the home. We saw that staff used reassurance and diversion techniques to support people who were becoming anxious or distressed. We also noted that the catering, domestic and maintenance staff spent time talking to people in a positive way.
One person did speak with us about their experiences and said that they liked the fact that their family could visit at any time. They also said, 'Its lovely here, I like it'.