Archived: Dormy House

People told us the service met peoples care needs. Some relatives were concerned that the service had experienced some shortages in staffing recently. The manager confirmed there had been staff shortages, but said they had implemented a system to replace staff where possible. We saw the manager had a system to identify staffing needs based on the dependency of people who use the service.

We saw people were cared for and monitored by care workers in the home. People received the help they needed during lunch and we saw staff responded to people's needs.

People told us the home was always kept clean. During a recent outbreak of infection we found the home reduced the risk of infection to people who use the service and staff by taking appropriate action. However we found the risk to others who came into contact with the service had not been minimised because appropriate information had not been given to visitors.

People who lived in the home, their relatives and staff all said there was sufficient equipment to meet the needs of people who use the service. Staff said they received appropriate training to care for people and use equipment appropriately.

We saw individual assessments in people's care records. The manager said the home reduced the risk of injury based on individual assessments, whilst attempting to limit the restrictions on people's independence. We found actions related to identified risks had been taken. A local safeguarding team told us the home had taken appropriate action in response to one specific injury, but this action could have been taken more quickly.

We saw people were taking part in various activities and being supported by staff to use communal areas. The home enabled people to move independently due to suitable design and layout of the building. We saw crash mats next to beds to limit the impact of falls and integrated bed rails on some beds.