The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ivers

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Hains Lane, Marnhull, Dorset, DT10 1JU (01258) 820164

Provided and run by:
Iver House Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

31 July 2015

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 31 July 2015.

Ivers is registered with the Care Quality Commission to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 25 adults with a learning disability. On the day of our inspection there were 23 people living in the home. People lived in either the main house or one of four bungalows built on the site. Each bungalow accommodated four people. On the day of our visit there were seven people living in the main house. Two of whom lived in a flat on the top floor.

The service had 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. On the day of our inspection the registered manager was on annual leave, however the deputy manager was available to help us.

Some people living in the home were unable to verbally communicate with us or engage directly with the inspection process. People demonstrated they were happy in their home; they were relaxed and engaged either with staff or in an activity meaningful to them. People were valued and well cared for by staff. People and their relatives told us staff were friendly and caring. Staff demonstrated a high commitment to their work and had built up positive relationships with people. People were treated as individuals and their diverse needs respected and met.

People received the support they required in a way which was tailored to their individual needs and preferences .Families told us they were involved in decisions about their loved one’s care and they felt listened to. People had an individual programme specific to them. There was a wide range of activities available for people both in the home and in the community. One healthcare professional told us the activities were “second to none and the staff are fantastic at giving people meaningful activity.”

Staff, people, relatives and healthcare professionals told us the home was integrated into the local community. For example one relative told us when they go into the village people in the community know their loved one by name and are warm and friendly. People attended social events in the village. One healthcare professional told us staff have made good contacts with the local community and relatives described it as accepting and inclusive.

People were protected from harm and abuse. There were policies and training in safeguarding adults and staff knew their responsibilities for reporting poor practice .People told us they felt safe and relatives told us they had no concerns and trusted their loved ones were safe living in the home.

There was an open transparent culture. People, staff and relatives told us they could approach the manager and felt listened to.

People were cared for by staff with the appropriate skills and experience. Some staff had worked in the home for a number of years and enjoyed their work. There had been five new staff recruited due to vacant posts. New staff were waiting to start work once all the necessary recruitment checks had taken place.

People told us they loved living in their home and liked having their own space. One person told us “ it’s so comfortable, I love having my own room.” People’s rooms were personalised with their own belongings and people were involved in decisions about decoration and furniture.

There were regular health and safety checks to ensure the home was safe such as infection control and checks of electrical goods. There were some outstanding maintenance jobs, to do with the general upkeep of the building. The provider had interim plans to carry out essential maintenance work. The deputy manager told us there were plans to have a maintenance person attend the site on a regular basis.

1-2 April 2014

During a routine inspection

Ivers is a care home that provides care and support for up to 25 adults with a learning disability.  There were 24 people living there at the time of our inspection. People referred to themselves as students and lived in either the main house or one of four bungalows built on the site. Some of the people who lived in the home did not use words to communicate and some had complex support needs.

At the time of our inspection, the home was actively recruiting to fill the position of registered manager. We spoke with the area manager who explained that the previous registered manager left in November 2013 and since then a number of interviews had been held. This process was still underway at the time of our inspection. The interim management arrangements included the provider’s area manager being based at the home to support the deputy manager.

We spoke with people who told us they were happy living in the home. We observed that people who did not use words to communicate were mostly smiling, and their body language indicated that they were relaxed. People interacted with each other and staff throughout our inspection. We heard chatter, laughter and saw a focus on activities.

People were involved in a wide range of activities both within the local community and on site. Staffing levels were maintained at a level that ensured these activities happened.

People were involved in most decisions about their care and support. When this was not possible the home followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to ensure that decisions about care involved appropriate specialists and representatives and were made in people’s best interests.

People’s preferences and interests were recorded and we saw that care was delivered as described in person centred care plans.  Person centred care plans describe what is important to the person and the support they need to live their life the way they want.  We saw that people were supported by staff that engaged with them and worked at a pace that suited them. We saw staff communicated with people; some staff were more effective in their communication because they were skilled in using people’s chosen communication systems such as signing but this was not standard across all staff.

The home was clean and well maintained and personal areas were decorated and furnished to reflect individual taste and lifestyles.

There was a clear management structure in the home and staff, representatives and people felt comfortable talking to the managers about concerns and ideas for improvements. The managers had recently undertaken audits and developed action plans to ensure that staff had the support and training they needed and that people’s care plans and risk assessments were up to date. We saw that the actions identified had happened.

At our last inspection we found that care plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed and updated appropriately to ensure they reflected changes in people’s needs. We saw that these were now being reviewed and updated in line with people’s changing needs.

We found the service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

4 January 2014

During a routine inspection

There were some arrangements in place to ensure people received appropriate care. For example, people had care plans which told staff about the help they needed with their personal care, how to communicate with them, and their likes and dislikes. People were also able to participate in activities that were meaningful to them and did a wide range of activities at Ivers and in their local community which they enjoyed. One person told us that they were doing an independent living skills course at a day centre. Another person told us that they liked "watching films, colouring and playing games" which they were able to do in the home.

Care plans and risk assessments were not always reviewed and updated appropriately to ensure that they reflected changes in people's needs. For example, staff described how they were supporting one person with eating and drinking at the time of our inspection. These arrangements had not been written down in the person's care plan to show that this was the agreed approach for staff to follow at this time.

The home had procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse. Staff knew how to report any concerns about abuse and we found that the home had reported incidents appropriately in line with their policy. This helped ensure that people who lived in the home were safe.

There were enough staff, with appropriate qualifications, skills and experience, to support people who lived at Ivers. One care worker told us, "We've always had enough staff", while another commented, "I don't think I've ever struggled." Staff told us that they had received training, for example, in the administration of medicines and first aid to ensure they had the right skills to support people.

The home maintained records about people's care. Most records we looked at were completed effectively, providing some useful information about how people's care was delivered and monitored. Records were stored securely in the home but could be located promptly when required.

12 March 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited Ivers on 12 March 2013, we were told that people who used this service liked to be referred to as students. Therefore throughout this report we have used this reference as requested.

During this inspection we found that students were very satisfied with the care and support they received. They told us they felt safe and well cared for, and the staff were friendly and supportive. One student told us, "It's wonderful here."

There was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the home, and we observed that students were offered support at a level which encouraged independence and assured their individual needs were met. The staff were friendly and courteous in their approach to students and interacted confidently with them. They had a good training and support system in place, and staff we spoke with told us they felt well equipped to do their job efficiently and safely.

Students were encouraged to express their views and were involved in planning their care, making decisions about their support, and how they spent their time. Within the care files we saw students had signed their care plans to confirm their involvement and agreement. We spoke with four students who were keen to share their plans and views with us.

The provider had systems in place to ensure students were involved in the quality monitoring processes for this service. They were encouraged to share their views and opinions to help improve the standard of care provision.

24, 25 January 2012

During a themed inspection looking at Learning Disability Services

There were 22 students at Ivers House when we visited. We met and introduced ourselves to at least 14 students. We spoke to five people in more depth to get their views of the service.

When one of the inspectors joined a group students spoke passionately about being involved in the Ivers Players (theatre group) and how much fun they had putting on the performance of Cinderella before Christmas.

Comments made to inspectors throughout the inspection included; 'The staff are nice', 'Staff help me do the things I want to do', 'My family visit me every week'.

One student showed us their room which was really personalised with their possessions and decorated to their own taste. They told us 'I chose the colours and the pictures'.

General comments and observations made by the expert by experience working with us included: -

The amount of activities the students were doing during the week and how they are involved in the community was brilliant. Ivers House was out in the country, it was nice that students had so much to do on the premises and in the community. The staff were friendly and seemed to communicate well with each other and the students.

It was nice they had the bungalows and there was not too many people living in one area, it was good that the students could wander around the premises freely.

Whilst being given a tour of Ivers House a member of staff was taking a student out to help with their laundry. This was really good as it teaches people how to be independent.

General comments and observations made by the expert by experience family carer working with us included: -

There was little if anything to fault and much to impress and admire. The site felt relaxed, secure and purposeful; these qualities were reflected in the behaviours of students and staff. The diversity of resources with in the site was equally admirable and included a vibrant art and drama studio, a computer suite, livestock, a domestic skills facility and horticulture.

The mid-day meal was prepared by the employed cook and eaten communally. Individuals requiring privacy had free access to there rooms which were observed to be spacious and well furnished. The use of locks and keys was kept to a minimum but students could secure their own space if they wished. The new bungalows were well designed for purpose.

Most impressive was the manner in which students interacted with and enhanced the local community, not least in putting on plays for the elderly, doing the gardening and grounds of the local G.P surgery and running and staffing a village nursery.