Archived: Dawson Road & Whateley Road

Dawson Road and Whateley Road is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as 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.

Dawson Road and Whateley Road accommodates up to 12 people in two bungalows which are joined by an internal corridor. At the time of inspection, 11 people were living at the home.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 were safe in the home. Risks had been assessed and staff knew what plans were in place to protect people from harm. Staff knew how to report concerns and how people would tell them if they were unhappy.

Staff have been safely recruited and well trained to meet the needs of the people living at the home. There was enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Medication was stored correctly and given to people at the right times.

People’s health needs were met and promoted and people were supported to eat and drink to promote their nutritional needs.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff who knew them well and were caring in their approach.

People’s needs and individual preferences were assessed and promoted.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and audit the quality of the service but there were gaps in these systems so some actions had been missed or were not completed in a timely manner.

The provider had not always fully consulted people, staff and relatives in decisions about the home or the ways in which care was being delivered.

Dawson Road and Whateley Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 12 adults who lived with a learning and physical disability with complex needs. At the time of our inspection 12 people were living at the home.

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.

The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided. Although these were not always effective at ensuring repair work was completed in a timely way.

People were safe and secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm

There were enough staff, who were safely recruited and had received appropriate training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.

People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.

Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.

People were supported to have food that they enjoyed and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to stay healthy and accessed health care professionals as required.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw that care was inclusive and people benefitted from positive interactions with staff.

People’s right to privacy was promoted and people’s independence was encouraged where possible.

People received care from staff that knew them well. People benefitted from the opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed and what was important to them.

Staffs were aware of the signs that would indicate that a person was unhappy, so that they could take appropriate actions. Information was available around the home in easy read formats for people.

During our inspection we met and/or spoke with all of the people who lived there. However, some people were unable to tell us their experiences of living there due to their communication needs. Consequently we spent time observing how staff interacted with and supported them. One person told us that the home and staff were, 'Nice'.

We spoke with eight staff (including a night nurse) and the registered manager. All of the staff we spoke with told us that they enjoyed working at the home. One said, 'The staff who work here are all good and the people are well cared for'.

We saw that people's needs had been assessed by a range of health care professionals including specialist doctors and the optician. This meant that staff had enabled people to have their health care and safety needs monitored and met.

People had been provided with varied food and drink options to prevent malnutrition and dehydration.

We found that medication systems had improved. This meant that the people who lived there could be assured that they would not be placed at risk of ill health due to unsafe medication management systems

We determined that staffing levels were adequate to ensure that people's needs were met and that they were safe.

We saw that complaints processes were in place for people or their relatives to use if they were not happy with the service provided.

As people had complex needs and were not all able to tell us about the service they received we used different methods to help us understand their experiences, including observation. We observed good interactions between staff and people living there. People were smiling and they looked happy.

We saw that people were treated with respect and dignity. People's needs had been assessed by a range of health professionals including dieticians and specialist consultants. This meant that people's health care needs had been monitored and met.

Staff had received training to help them recognise abuse and inform them of who they should report to if they had a concern.

Medication processes did not give assurance that they were robust or safe which could place people at risk of not being given their medication as it had been prescribed by their doctor.

Staffing levels were not adequate which meant that staff did not have the time to fully meet people's needs in the way that they preferred.

Records and staff both confirmed that systems had been used to monitor how the home had been run to benefit the people who lived there.