We carried out a review of the data available to us about De Lucy House 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 De Lucy House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ The home was clean, hygienic, free of unpleasant odours and had adequate ventilation throughout. Enhanced cleaning schedules were in place and were frequently checked.
¿ Robust infection and control procedures (IPC) had been established which were understood and adhered to by the staff. Staff had received relevant training in IPC and had their competencies assessed by the management team.
¿ Information including posters on IPC best practice in areas such as hand hygiene, donning and doffing of PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and social distancing were displayed throughout the home to reinforce safe procedures.
¿ Staff were observed to be wearing PPE appropriately. There were sufficient supplies of PPE, with designated areas throughout the home for staff to access.
¿ Individual risk assessments had been conducted in consultation with people who lived in the home and or their representatives. These were regularly reviewed.
¿ Risks to staff in relation to their health, safety and well-being had been assessed and were monitored. Where individual risks had been identified, control measures had been implemented to mitigate against the risk.
¿ The environment was well organised and had been adapted to support social distancing. There was a designated staff changing area and identified areas for staff to safely take their breaks.
¿ At the time of our visit the home was closed to all but essential visitors in accordance with government guidelines when there is a confirmed outbreak. The registered manager was very aware of the emotional impact on people when they were not able to see their relatives. Considerable emphasis had been placed on finding different ways to enable people to maintain contact with their families which included video calls, telephone calls or written communication.
¿ The provider had appropriate infection control policies and procedures in place. These had been developed in line with current government guidance and fully implemented in the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
A registered manager was in post but not present during 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.
The service was exceptionally responsive to meeting people’s needs. People were at the heart of the service, receiving exceptional care that was personalised to them, taking account of their individual needs and wishes. They were actively involved in contributing to the planning of their care and support. This was regularly reviewed and tailored to meet changing needs.
People were actively encouraged and supported to pursue their hobbies, participate in meaningful activities that they chose, enabling them to live as full a life as possible.
People were complimentary about the care they received and the approach of the management team and staff. Staff had developed good relationships with people. Staff consistently protected people’s privacy and dignity and promoted their independence.
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 enjoyed a positive meal time experience and were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health and access healthcare services.
People knew how to complain and share their experiences. Their views and opinions were actively sought, valued and listened to. Concerns and complaints were thoroughly investigated, responded to and used to improve the quality of the service.
The service provided a safe service to people. This included systems in place intended to minimise the risks to people, including from abuse, falls and with their medicines.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in keeping people safe. They were trained and supported to meet people’s needs. Staff were available when people needed assistance and had been recruited safely.
Systems were in place to receive, record, store and administer medicines safely. Where people required assistance to take their medicines there were arrangements in place to provide this support safely.
The environment met the needs of the people who lived there. All areas of the service were clean and in good state of repair with equipment maintained.
The management team were accessible, supportive and had good leadership skills. Staff were aware of the values of the provider and understood their roles and responsibilities. Morale was good within the workforce.
The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed. There was a culture of listening to people and positively learning from events so similar incidents were not repeated. As a result, the quality of the service continued to develop.