About the service:

Davies Court provides long term, respite and intermediate care to older people. Some people using the service were living with dementia. Davies Court can accommodate up to 60 people in four separate units. The service is located in the town of Dinnington, Rotherham. At the time of our inspection there were 45 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received safe care and treatment. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and appropriately managed in a way which respected people’s freedoms and choices. People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse and staff knew what action to take if abuse was suspected. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs in a calm and unrushed manner. People’s medicines were managed in a safe way. However, temperatures of the rooms where medicines were stored, were not consistently taken to ensure medicines were stored safely. We spoke with the registered manager who immediately addressed this issue.

We found the service was clean and tidy and people were protected from the risk of infection. However, one kitchenette had worn units which were unable to be kept clean. We spoke with the registered manager who immediately acted to resolve this issue.

Staff received training and support which gave them the skills to carry out their roles and responsibilities. People who used the service received a healthy, balanced diet which met their needs and took in to consideration their preferences.

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.

People were supported by staff who received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff felt supported by the management team.

People received adequate nutrition and hydration which supported a healthy and balanced diet. People’s likes and dislikes were accommodated within menu planning. The provider ensured that people were referred to healthcare professionals as required.

During our inspection we observed staff interacting with people who used the service. We found staff were kind, caring and supported people in a respectful manner.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s current needs and preferences. People had access to social stimulation and activities. We saw the provider had a complaints procedure which was displayed in the home. People and relatives, we spoke with felt comfortable in raising concerns if they needed to.

The registered manager operated a governance system which included the completion of several audits. These were to ensure the service was operating within the policies and procedures set by the provider. Any concerns were acted on appropriately. People who used the service, their relatives and staff were involved in the service and felt valued.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 28 September 2016)

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

The unannounced inspection took place on 24 August 2016. We last inspected the service in July 2014 when it was found to be meeting the regulations we assessed.

Davies Court provides mainly respite and intermediate care to older people, including those living with dementia. It is also currently supporting six people on a permanent basis. It has 60 bed spaces, and is located near the town centre of Dinnington. At the time of our inspection there were 46 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. The registered manager was not available when we visited, but the acting manager assisted us with the inspection.

The home had a very relaxed and friendly atmosphere. People using the service, relatives and visiting professionals described staff as professional and welcoming. Throughout our inspection we saw staff supporting people in a caring, responsive and friendly manner, while including them in decision making. They encouraged people to be as independent as possible, while taking into consideration their abilities and any risks associated with their care. All the people we spoke with made positive comments about how staff delivered care and said they were happy with the way the home was managed, as well as the facilities available.

People told us they felt the home was a safe place to live. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding people from abuse, and were able to explain the procedures to follow should there be any concerns of this kind. Assessments identified any potential risks to people, such as falls, and care files contained management plans to reduce these risks.

Medicines were stored safely and procedures were in place to ensure they were administered correctly. We saw people either managed their own medication or were assisted by staff who had been trained to carry out this role.

There was enough skilled and experienced staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The recruitment process was robust and helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had received a structured induction into how the home operated and their job role at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme and regular support to help them meet the needs of the people who used the service, while developing their knowledge and skills.

People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. Specialist diets were provided if needed and the people we spoke with said they were very happy with the meals available.

People’s needs had been assessed before they stayed at the home. If someone was admitted at short notice staff had collated as much information as possible prior to, and on admission. We saw people had been involved in planning their care, as well as on-going reviews. Care files reflected people’s needs and preferences and had been updated regularly to ensure they reflected people’s changing needs.

The home did not have a dedicated activity co-ordinator to facilitate a structured programme of activities. We found care staff aimed to provide social activities to stimulate people when they had time. People told us they enjoyed the activities provided.

The company’s complaints policy was available to people using or visiting the service. We saw that when concerns had been raised these had been investigated and resolved promptly. The people we spoke with raised no concerns.

There was a system in place to enable people to share their opinion of the service provided and the general facilities available. We also saw a structured audit system ha

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Staff were given guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely, and detailed risk assessments and records were in place to ensure people received the care and support they required, although we identified one aspect of care where risks hadn’t been thoroughly assessed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment and were protected from the risk of infection. Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Care plans contained assessments of people’s care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person’s needs were met. Evidence we checked showed that staff were following people’s care plans and risk assessments.

Audits and reviews took place to ensure that care was delivered in a way that met people’s needs.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with praised the service. One said: “They [staff] are kind, compassionate, caring, you couldn’t wish for better.” Staff we observed treated people in a caring and respectful manner, and showed kindness and consideration to people.

Is the service responsive?

Where the provider identified areas for improvement, these were implemented. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of care and assess whether people’s needs were being met.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where audits of all aspects of the service were carried out. This was undergoing an overhaul at the time of the inspection, and work had been carried out to identify the most effective way of quality monitoring. However, the provider had failed to make certain, legally required, notifications to the Care Quality Commission.

People we spoke with told us they liked living at the service. They told us the staff were good and looked after them.

People also told us that staff treated them with respect, listened to them, gave them choices, made them feel safe and supported them. One person told us, “Brilliant, I couldn’t think of anything better. From the carers to the domestics they are all great; they are there as soon as you need them.” Another person we spoke with said, “All the staff are very good. You have a laugh and a joke with them and they go out of their way to do things for you.”

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening. One person told us, “I wouldn’t change anything, I feel safe living here.”

Staff received appropriate professional development. A training programme was in place to provide staff with the training and support they needed. Staff we spoke with told us the training was very good, they were able to access external as well as internal training courses.

There was an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was a complaints policy that took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. The manager was able to demonstrate she was fully involved in the quality monitoring and audits within the service.

Everyone we spoke with was positive about their experience of receiving services at Davies Court. We asked one person what they thought of the home and they replied “it’s really lovely, really beautiful”. Another person we asked said “it’s a thumbs up”. One person we spoke with about what there was to do at Davies Court told us “there’s always plenty to do – they keep me busy”.

We spoke with people about their experience of the staff in the home and one person said “the staff are wonderful”. Another commented “I couldn’t wish for better”. We spoke with the relative of one person who was using the service. This person said that they had not initially wanted their relative to move into a care home, however they said “it’s wonderful here – they can’t do enough for her.” This person also said “the staff are so kind and have so much time for people”