Dene Park House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

At the last inspection we found the provider was in breach of regulation 17 as some people’s care plans lacked person-centred information and the necessary guidance to enable staff to support them as an individual. At this inspection the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 17. Staff understood the importance of delivering person-centred care and were responsive to people’s individual needs and preferences. Staff supported people to access services they may require, to ensure additional care and treatment needs were assessed and met. Information was provided in appropriate, accurate and up-to-date formats that could be tailored to individual needs. Systems in place made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support. Procedures were in place to support people to plan and make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. Care plans were person centred, provided relevant detail to assist staff to deliver appropriate care and were regularly reviewed. The premises were accessible for those people requiring reasonable adjustments and people were enabled to access non-healthcare related services on a regular basis.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and their relatives found care and support was person-centred and responsive to their individual needs. People’s rooms were personalised and comfortable. People told us their care needs were regularly reviewed and changes were made when needed. One person said, “They look after me.” Another person said, “I have a good solid friendship with the girls.”

Improvements had been made to records to ensure person centred care was provided by all staff. They now provided staff with information on how people wished to be supported including, if they could no longer tell staff themselves. This included information about people’s preferences and things of importance to them, to assist staff to deliver person centred care. One staff member told us, “We know what is important to people because we read their care plans and we talk to residents and their families.” Another staff member said, “I care for the residents and assist them to keep them safe, warm, well-nourished and comfortable.”

People appeared to be receiving the care they wanted and needed. Staff were visible throughout the day. They were observed responding to people's requests for help. On the ground floor staff were occasionally seen chatting to service users but often gathered in groups or focused on completing tasks. Staff on the middle floor seemed busy and call bells could sound for longer before being attended to. On the top floor we saw appropriate affectionate contact with people and gentle reminders and prompts.

People and relatives told us they received coordinated and consistent care from staff who knew them well. One person said, “I’m pleased to be here, so much better than the hospital, I am really glad to be back.”

Staff were responsive to people’s changing needs. They told us they had training and were given clear guidance around how to support people, recognise changes in their needs and when to contact external healthcare professionals. Staff understood when people required support to reduce the risk of avoidable harm. One staff member told us, “We make sure people are happy and comfortable with the care we give.”

Professionals were confident staff had the skills they needed to provide people with the right care. Staff worked effectively as a team and with services to support people. One professional told us, “The staff I observed were caring and compassionate towards the people they cared for” and another professional said, “I have a good working relationship with the staff at Dene Park, they are approachable and responsive to all queries or questions.”

Information was available to share between services, as needed, which covered people’s care and support needs. Staff ensured care plans contained relevant information about people’s needs and preferences to enable staff to provide appropriate care.

People's communication needs were assessed and their care plans were regularly reviewed. People told us they received information in a format which suited their needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about the most effective ways to communicate with people. Care plans detailed people’s communication needs and how staff could best support them. One staff member told us, “Communication is key in working in a care environment. It is very important.”

Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand. It also says people should get the support they need in relation to communication. The provider and registered manager understood the requirements of the standard and ensured people had information accessible to them in different formats, when needed, such as easy read, large print, different languages and pictorial.

People and their relatives knew how to share their views and experiences about the service. One person told us, “They bring a form to fill in and they ask you things.” Another person said, “They do ask me what I want.” People and relatives knew how to raise concerns and were confident they would be addressed promptly. They found the provider and registered manager approachable, listened to their views and acted upon them. A relative told us, “I did a formal complaint with the area manager, she sat down and listened to me, wrote it all down and then sorted it out.”

The registered manager and staff positively encouraged feedback about the service. Staff regularly consulted people about the care and support they received. Comments included, “I get to know my residents. From the very first moment we meet, every single interaction we have, I am building trust. By asking questions and actually listening, I get to know someone”, “I get people involved, by asking them questions about themselves and having a bond” and “It’s nice sometimes sitting and talking to people about their lives.”

The registered manager had procedures in place to promote continuous, effective communication, with people, relatives, staff and external social and healthcare professionals. They operated an ‘open-door policy’ where anyone was able to speak with them regarding any concerns or queries they may have and be assured this would be dealt with and actioned, accordingly. People and relatives were given regular opportunities to share their views through meetings and surveys. The provider had a complaints policy and procedures were in place to investigate, respond and learn from complaints. People’s records showed people’s needs were reviewed and staff worked in close partnership with relevant professionals to make changes.

People told us staff advocated for them and their rights, when required, and respected their equality and diversity. They were supported by staff who knew how to meet their needs.

Staff understood how to ensure people had equitable access to health and social care services. They were trained in equality and diversity.

Care professionals found staff understood how to meet people’s diverse care and support needs. One professional told us, “Families I have worked with have had a good experience when at Dene Park House. Any issues are quickly acted on and resolved. Management is easily accessible to talk to and they always return emails or phone calls when requested.”

Policies and procedures were in place in relation to equality and diversity. Care records detailed how to access the care and support people might need, which supported staff to provide appropriate care. The premises were accessible for those people requiring reasonable adjustments. Remote access to church services had been arranged for those people, unable to attend in person, wishing to follow their faith.

People told us the staff actively sought out and listened to information about their experiences and what their aspirations were. People’s care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people's current support needs and desired outcomes.

Staff understood the importance of treating people as individuals and tailored care and support in response to people’s wishes and expectations. Staff took into account the needs of people who preferred to have care delivered by specific carers. They also recognised and respected the cultural needs of people from different countries and faiths. Staff promoted people’s independence, supported people to achieve good outcomes and maintained their well-being.

The provider stated, “Our vision is to be the provider of choice within local communities for anyone looking for quality care or seeking a career within care. Working together to make a difference for our residents, we will respect their individual choices by providing personalised care and support.” The provider had a designated equality and diversity champion within the service to look at areas that could be improved upon within the home for people and staff. The registered manager told us, “We have had residents who make diet choices relating to where they are from and the kind of food they like to eat according to their culture. One of our staff members was from the same area as a resident and was able to support with cooking food they preferred to eat. The staff member was able to support the kitchen with this by providing recipes. This helped the resident to feel valued and supported to make Dene Park House feel like home.”

People’s wishes were respected by staff when they neared the end of their life.

Staff were encouraged to promote dignity, autonomy and respect for people as they approached the end of their life. The registered manager and staff received training in planning for, and providing end of life care, and were aware of best practice. They had forged good working relationships with specialist palliative professionals to ensure people received personalised end of life care.

Policies and procedures were in place around providing care for people reaching the end of their life. Care plans detailed the discussions about people's wishes for the future. At the time of our assessment nobody was receiving end of life care.