• Care Home
  • Care home

Davies Court

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Coronation Avenue, Dinnington, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, S25 2AB (01709) 334442

Provided and run by:
Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 11 December 2020

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.

This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place. As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service had been identified for use by the Local Authority as a designated care setting in response to the Winter Plan for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status. This inspection was to ensure that the service was compliant with infection control and prevention measures.

This inspection took place on 1 December 2020 and was announced.

Overall inspection

Good

Updated 11 December 2020

About the service:

Davies Court provides long term, respite and intermediate care to older people. Some people using the service were living with dementia. Davies Court can accommodate up to 60 people in four separate units. The service is located in the town of Dinnington, Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received safe care and treatment. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and appropriately managed in a way which respected people’s freedoms and choices. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff knew what action to take if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a calm and unrushed manner. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. However, temperatures of the rooms where medicines were stored, were not consistently taken to ensure medicines were stored safely. We spoke with the registered manager who immediately addressed this issue.

We found the service was clean and tidy and people were protected from the risk of infection. However, one kitchenette had worn units which were unable to be kept clean. We spoke with the registered manager who immediately acted to resolve this issue.

Staff received training and support which gave them the skills to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People who used the service received a healthy, balanced diet which met their needs and took in to consideration their preferences.

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 were supported by staff who received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff felt supported by the management team.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration which supported a healthy and balanced diet. People’s likes and dislikes were accommodated within menu planning. The provider ensured that people were referred to healthcare professionals as required.

During our inspection we observed staff interacting with people who used the service. We found staff were kind, caring and supported people in a respectful manner.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current needs and preferences. People had access to social stimulation and activities. We saw the provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the home. People and relatives, we spoke with felt comfortable in raising concerns if they needed to.

The registered manager operated a governance system which included the completion of several audits. These were to ensure the service was operating within the policies and procedures set by the provider. Any concerns were acted on appropriately. People who used the service, their relatives and staff were involved in the service and felt valued.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 28 September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.