We carried out a review of the data available to us about Daubeney Gate 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 Daubeney Gate, you can give feedback on this service.
Daubeney Gate provides care for six adults with learning disabilities. The service provides 24-hour support to people, which enables them to live as independently as possible. The accommodation is over two floors with adapted bathrooms and enclosed garden areas. At the time of the inspection, six people were living at the service.
People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At our last inspection, we rated the service as Good. At this second comprehensive inspection, we found that the service remained good.
There was 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.
Effective quality checks had not previously been carried out in order to check that the service was meeting people's needs and to ensure they were provided with a safe, quality service. Staff had not always received regular training and supervision to make sure they had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care in line with best practice. The registered manager had taken steps to improve the governance of the service, however we needed to be sure they could be sustained and embedded into staff practice.
Staff followed the procedures for safeguarding people from the risks of harm or abuse. Risk management plans were in place to safeguard people’s personal safety and manage known environmental risks.
Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's current needs. The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were completed to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service.
Medicines were managed safely. The processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service. Staff had the appropriate personal protective equipment to perform their roles safely. The service was clean and tidy, and regular cleaning took place to ensure the prevention of the spread of infection.
People’s needs and choices were assessed before they went to live at the service to make sure their care was provided in line with their preferences.
People were encouraged to shop for, prepare, and cook their own meals. Staff supported them to make healthy choices to maintain their health and well-being. Staff supported people to book and attend appointments with healthcare professionals, and supported them to maintain a healthy lifestyle. The service worked with other organisations to ensure that people received coordinated and person-centred care and support.
People’s diverse needs were met by the adaptation, design, and decoration of premises and they were involved in decisions about the environment. People's consent was gained before any care was provided and the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. 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 support this practice
Staff treated people with kindness, dignity, respect, and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and preferences. People looked happy and comfortable in the company of staff. Relatives told us they were happy with the way that staff provided support to their family members and that this was always carried out in a respectful and dignified manner. People were encouraged to make decisions about how their care was provided.
People were listened to, their views were acknowledged and acted upon, and care and support was delivered in the way that people chose and preferred. Care plans were person centred and reflected how people’s needs were to be met. People were supported to take part in activities that they wanted to do, within the service and the local community. There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people to raise complaints about the service.
There was nobody receiving end of life care at the time of our inspection. However, there were systems were in place and future planning documents to support people and their families when coming to the end of their life.
Staff worked well together and created a relaxed, friendly, and jovial atmosphere at the service. Staff were positive about the management and told us there had been previous difficulties with a lack of staffing but things had improved recently.
This inspection took place 13 & 19 January 2016 and was unannounced.
This inspection was carried out by one inspector.
Daubeney Gate is registered to provide care for up to six people with learning disabilities. On the day of our inspection six people were using the service.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
People felt safe. Staff had received training to enable them to recognise signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report them.
People had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as they could be.
There were sufficient staff, with the correct skill mix, on duty to support people with their needs.
Effective recruitment processes were in place and followed by the service.
Medicines were managed safely and the processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.
Staff received a comprehensive induction process and ongoing training. They were very well supported by the registered manager and had regular one to one time for supervisions.
Staff had attended a variety of training to ensure they were able to provide care based on current practice when supporting people.
Staff always gained consent before supporting people.
People were supported to make decisions about all aspects of their life; this was underpinned by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff were very knowledgeable of this guidance and correct processes were in place to protect people.
People were able to make choices about the food and drink they had, and staff gave support when required.
People were supported to access a variety of health professionals when required, including dentists, opticians and doctors.
Staff provided care and support in a caring and meaningful way. They knew the people who used the service well.
People and relatives where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.
People’s privacy and dignity was maintained at all times.
People were supported to follow their interests.
A complaints procedure was in place and accessible to all. People knew how to complain.
Effective quality monitoring systems were in place. A variety of audits were carried out and used to drive improvement.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the 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?
We found that records relevant to the management of the service were accurate and fit for purpose. These were kept securely and updated when required.
People who used the service had risk assessments in place to enable them to be as independent as possible.
Is the service effective?
People were involved in the planning and review of their care and signed to consent to this. Documentation was available in a pictorial format to aid understanding.
Is the service caring?
We observed that people were supported by staff that showed patience and kindness.
People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
Care plans were reviewed and updated on a regular basis to reflect the changing needs of people.
People were assisted to enjoy activities of their choice, with support where required.
Is the service well led?
A registered manager was in post, who was supernumerary to the staff on duty. They were supported by a management team.
Records showed that quality assurance processes were in place to ensure people received a quality service.
We found that people were cared for in a safe and caring way and that arrangements were in place which ensured that people's best interests were taken into consideration when planning care or treatment.
We found that medicines were managed appropriately.
We found that there was sufficient knowledgeable staff to meet people's needs.
We found that records described accurately the care people required.
We found that the service was safe, effective, responsive, and well led.