Archived: Dunmore Residential Home

Our inspection team was made up of a single inspector. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we had inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking to people using the service, staff supporting them and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with dignity and respect by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure that the managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to a disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

People's healthcare needs were assessed with them but they were not always involved in writing their care plans. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Some people said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'The staff are lovely and so kind'. 'They encourage me to talk about my life and experiences which help improve my memory'.

People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed bi-annual satisfaction surveys. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these had been addressed.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities in the home. Most people enjoyed the entertainment and trips out. All people were offered the choice of outings but some declined.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. No one we spoke to felt the need to make a complaint as they were very happy with the service they received. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with and found that the responses had been open, thorough and timely. People could therefore be assured that complaints were investigated and action was taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure that people received their care in a joined up way.

The service had a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls had been addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continually improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

During our inspection we observed a number of positive interactions and friendly conversations between people and care workers. People were spoken to calmly and respectfully and care workers worked unhurriedly.

This was a responsive inspection because a concern had been raised that people were made to get up early and waited a long time for breakfast. We were also told that people were roughly handled by staff and that some care staff could not communicate because of language difficulties. None of those concerns were substantiated by what we found in this inspection.

We visited the home just after 5am. We found that very few people were awake. Those that were told us that they liked to get up early. Their wishes in respect of this had been clearly recorded in their care plans. People had been given hot drinks after waking and had the breakfast of their choice afterwards.

Effective recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that care workers were suited to their roles. Care workers had received appropriate training, including manual handling training. People were supported gently by staff. Rotas were planned to ensure that there was a mixture of skills and experience.

The provider had systems in place to safeguard people from abuse.

One person, who had lived at the Dunmore Residential Home for four years, said they 'had no complaints, the staff are good and kind to you when you are not well'.

Staff we spoke with understood about keeping people safe. One person we spoke with said that staff 'were very quick at handling disputes that occur from time to time between people living in the home'. They told us that they 'handle it well and I feel safe'.

We were told by care staff that they had access to necessary training. One care worker told us that they 'had the necessary training to do the job and extra training was available if needed'. Staff told us they felt well supported.

We saw that regular surveys of people living at Dunmore, relatives and other stakeholders were undertaken to obtain feedback on the quality of care provided. One person we spoke with said that 'staff ask us what we think of our care at different times'.