Archived: Ernest Dene Residential Care Home

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.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with twelve people using the service, three 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 carried out this inspection in response to concerns reported to us from two sources about the management and staffing in the home. We did not find any evidence to suggest that people were not safe in the home.

Is the service effective?

This was a short inspection focused on looking at staffing levels. On the day of the inspection people had all received personal care and were helped to have their lunch. There was no evidence that the service was not effective.

Is the service caring?

We spent an hour observing interaction between staff and people living in the home. Most people told us that staff were caring. Comments included, " they are good. I can find no fault with them," and "If they're busy you have to wait, they normally deal with you as soon as they can. No improvements are needed." We observed three staff showing patience and empathy when supporting people. One person told us they thought staff were "rigid" and did not listen to people.

Is the service responsive?

We spoke with a senior care worker, the acting manager and a representative from the company who run the home. We also spoke with 12 of the 28 people living at Ernest Dene and spent some time observing the daily routine in the home.We found that the number of staff on duty were able to meet people's needs at the time of the inspection which was on a Sunday.

Is the service well-led?

The manager of the home had stopped working at the home full time in April 2014 though still visited the home and provided staff training. People living in the home did not know who the current manager was and this had caused some confusion.

There were systems in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. The home had appropriate training, policies and procedures in place to minimise the risk of people being abused.

Staff were inducted into all aspects of their role and then had the opportunity to attend other training days or courses to further develop their skills.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and the Care Quality Commission was notified of significant events in line with the regulations. NHS statistics indicated that people from the home had a higher level of admissions than expected to Accident and Emergency Departments, but we found no evidence of this being the case.

People were very positive about the home. People told us 'Its very nice,' and 'Its good as far as I'm concerned.' They told us that they felt safe at the home.

They told us that staff were attentive and gave them the support that they needed. One person noted 'They are very caring.' We observed many examples of staff supporting people in a supportive manner that respected their dignity.

We observed two mealtimes in the home, and people told us that they enjoyed the food served. One person noted 'If I don't like something they'll get me something else.'

People said that they were happy with the home environment. One person told us 'It has a homely feel.'

A variety of activities were available for people at the home, and some people went out regularly. One person told us 'I go out in the local area.' However some people told us that they would enjoy a greater variety of activities.