Drovers House

Updated 12 February 2020

The inspection

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.

Inspection Team

The inspection team consisted of an inspector and an expert-by-experience who had experience and knowledge of using this type of service.

Service and service type

Drovers House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). However, at the time of our visit the registered manager was on long term leave. The provider had appointed a general manager to run the home in their absence. The registered manager and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

The initial inspection visit took place on 23 December 2019 and was unannounced on the first day. We returned following the Christmas break to complete our inspection on 09 January 2020. On the second day we told the manager we would return.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included information received from the provider about deaths, accidents and incidents and safeguarding alerts which they are required to send to us by law. We also requested feedback from the Local Authority quality monitoring officers and the local clinical commissioning team. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

We were unable to use information from the Provider Information Return, as we had failed to request this before our inspection visit. This is information we require providers to send us at least once a year to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We therefore asked additional questions of the manager during our visit, to ensure we gathered all the information we required.

During our inspection

We spoke with four people living at the home and four people’s relatives. Some people, due to their complex care needs and disabilities were unable to give us their feedback about the home. We spent time with people to see how staff supported them.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas of the home.

We received feedback from eleven members of staff including the chef, lifestyle lead, general manager, deputy/duty manager, care manager, deputy chief executive, service manager, a recruitment and training manager and a volunteer.

We reviewed a range of records, including five people's care and medicines records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service, including audits and systems for managing any complaints. We reviewed the provider’s records of their visits to the service; and records of when checks were made on the quality of care provided.

We looked at two personnel files to check that suitable recruitment procedures were in place, and that staff received supervision and appraisals to continue their professional development.

Updated 12 February 2020

About the service

Drovers House is a residential care home, providing personal care and accommodation for up to 75 older people, including people living with dementia. The home was divided into six separate units across three floors, five of which were being used as residential accommodation. There were 56 people living at Drovers House when we inspected the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People’s relatives and staff gave us mixed feedback about whether there were enough staff available to always respond to people’s needs. However, we found staffing levels were determined by people’s support requirements and were being regularly reviewed by the provider. During our inspection visit we found there were sufficient staff to respond to people’s preferences and wishes.

People felt safe at Drovers House. Staff were provided with guidance about how to keep people safe. Environmental risks were identified and mitigated against. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from the risk of abuse. The manager checked staff’s suitability for their role before they started working at the home. Medicines were stored, administered and managed safely following a full review of all medicine procedures at the home.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were cared for and supported by staff who had the skills and training to meet their needs. People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet that met their individual dietary needs and preferences. People were referred to healthcare services when their health needs changed.

People received kind, responsive person-centred care from staff. Staff respected people’s privacy. Overall, people and their relatives were involved in planning their care and support. The staff team worked to promote people’s dignity and prevent people from becoming socially isolated within the home.

People were encouraged to maintain their preferred and familiar routines and habits, which made them content and relaxed. The provider employed lifestyle coaches, who were dedicated to supporting people to make the most of each day through physical activity. The group and one-to-one activity sessions were effective and the positive impact on people’s moods was visible. People knew how to raise concerns and provide feedback about the service. The provider ensured people received care at the end of their life, which met their wishes.

The service was led by an interim general manager who had been appointed to the home two months before our visit. This was because the registered manager of the home had been on leave for several months. The general manager was supported by a care manager, daily duty manager, and care co-ordinators. The management team worked together to identify areas for improvement at the home.

The provider had implemented technological systems that promoted undisturbed sleep, ensured staff and management had access to the most up-to-date information at the press of a button and enabled relatives to be fully informed and involved in their relations’ care. People benefited from the technology because staff had more time to care for them. The provider listened and acted on people’s views to improve the service.

Rating at last inspection

The last comprehensive inspection report for Drovers House (published June 2017) we gave a rating of outstanding overall. At this inspection we found the service had changed and have rated the service as good in all areas.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. During our inspection visit we looked at a notification of a specific incident where a person had developed an injury. This incident is currently being investigated. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. The information CQC received about the incident indicated concerns around the safety of people at the home. This inspection examined those risks.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.