Archived: Ernest Dene Residential Care Home

Updated 19 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This unannounced inspection took place on 24 July 2018 and carried out by one inspector and an inspection assistant. Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the completed PIR and previous inspection reports before the inspection.

We also reviewed other information we had about the provider, including notifications of any safeguarding or other incidents affecting the safety and well-being of people using the service. By law, the provider must notify us about certain changes, events and incidents that affect their service or the people who use it.

We spoke with eight people who used the service. Because it was not always possible to ask everyone direct questions about the service they received, we observed interactions between staff and people using the service as we wanted to see if the way that staff communicated and supported people had a positive effect on their well-being.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with four care staff, the deputy manager, the acting manager, the cook, a domestic worker and the operations manager. We spoke with a social care professional during the inspection. The acting manager wrote to us after the inspection and provided some additional information we had requested.

We looked at four people’s care plans and other documents relating to their care including risk assessments and medicine records. We looked at other records held at the home including four staffing files, meeting minutes, health and safety documents and quality monitoring audits.

Updated 19 September 2018

This unannounced inspection was undertaken on 24 July 2018 and was carried out by one inspector and an inspection assistant. At our last inspection we rated the service ‘good’. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

Ernest Dene is a ‘care home’ for older people, some of whom are living with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is registered to accommodate a maximum of 33 people. This originally included nine double rooms which are now single occupancy. The service currently accommodates 24 people. Most of the people using the service had been living at the home for many years. Most of the staff team had also been working at the home for some time and everyone knew each other well.

People using the service were relaxed with staff and the way staff interacted with people had a positive effect on their well-being.

Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and knew how to raise any concerns with the appropriate safeguarding authorities.

Risks to people’s safety had been identified and the management had thought about and recorded ways to mitigate these risks.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in relation to maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene in the premises.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were administered to people safely and appropriately.

There were enough staff on duty to support people safely.

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.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA 2005) and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People were included in making choices about what they wanted to eat and staff understood and followed people’s nutritional plans in respect of any cultural requirements or specific healthcare needs people had.

Both people who used the service and the staff who supported them had regular opportunities to comment on service provision and made suggestions regarding quality improvements.

People had regular access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Staff treated people as unique individuals who had different likes, dislikes, needs and preferences. Staff and management made sure no one was disadvantaged because of their age, gender, sexual orientation, disability or culture. Staff understood the importance of upholding and respecting people’s diversity. Staff challenged discriminatory practice.

Everyone had an individual plan of care which was reviewed on a regular basis.

People were supported to raise any concerns or complaints and staff understood the different ways people expressed their views about the service and if they were happy with their care.