CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dalvey House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-organised care, with some consent records and activities still needing attention.
Inspectors visited without warning on 9 and 10 May 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care files, medicines records, staff files, complaints and quality checks, and observed care and mealtimes.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, clean surroundings and good safeguarding arrangements. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their care was generally personalised.
The home had improved since the previous inspection on 26 June 2018, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall. Earlier problems with staffing, recruitment and care planning had been addressed. Inspectors still identified some areas to keep improving, including recording who could legally give consent and expanding activities.
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff and improved recruitment checks. Managers worked in the home and used a dependency tool and daily observations to decide staffing needs.
“The home had enough staff. This had improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed people being supported with choices, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Good health and food support
People received help to access health professionals and staff followed treatment plans. Food choices were offered, meals were described positively and the home had the highest food hygiene rating.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Improved management and oversight
The home had improved since the last inspection. Managers used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor care and make changes.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the standard of care provided.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingIn some cases, family members had given consent without the legal authority to do so. The manager immediately started to put this right.
“However, in some cases consent was given on the person's behalf by family members who did not possess the legal authority to do so.” from the report
Activities
minorActivities had improved since the previous inspection, but people still wanted more. The home was adding activities staff and continuing to develop its programme.
“At this inspection they told us this has improved but they wanted more.” from the report
Care plan detail
minorCare plans were personalised and relevant, but the manager was still reviewing them to develop them further. Some end of life plans were less detailed than others.
“The registered manager was in the process of reviewing all care plans to develop them further.” from the report
- 01How do you check that the right person is giving consent for my relative's care and treatment?
- 02How are you developing my relative's care plan, and how often will it be reviewed?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how will you provide more activities for people who want them?
- 04How many agency staff are currently used, and how do you make sure they know my relative's needs?
- 05How would you support my relative with end of life care, and how would their wishes be recorded?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 May 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Dalvey House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but staffing, care records and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 11 and 14 May 2018. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, agency staff, relatives and professionals. They observed care and checked records, including care plans, medicines, staffing and safety records.
People were generally safe, treated kindly and supported by trained staff. Medicines were managed well. The home worked with health professionals, supported people's choices and provided food that people generally liked.
The main concerns were stretched staffing, high use of agency staff and care plans in different formats. Activities were limited and some planned activities did not happen. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Well-led were rated Good, while Safe and Responsive were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw strong relationships between people and staff. Staff noticed when someone was distressed and reassured them.
“It was evident that people had built a strong rapport with staff and there were good relations between the two.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored safely and administration records had no gaps. Staff recorded doses, allergies and the application of creams carefully.
“Medication administration records were well maintained with no gaps in the records.” from the report
Staff training
Staff received core training and new staff completed the Care Certificate. Supervision and annual appraisals were also in place.
“Staff received induction and on-going training to ensure that they were competent and could meet people's needs effectively.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with doctors, district nurses and other health professionals. People's healthcare needs were assessed and referrals were made when needed.
“Health and social care professionals told us that the home worked effectively and collaboratively in meeting people's needs.” from the report
Food choices
People generally liked the food and could choose between meals. Their views were discussed at residents' meetings.
“There was a choice of meal and the food was of a good standard.” from the report
Stretched staffing
needs fixingStaff vacancies, sickness and agency use meant staff felt rushed at times. Inspectors saw a calmer service when an extra agency worker was available.
“There were enough staff, although the team was stretched because of staff vacancies and high use of agency staff.” from the report
Care plan formats
needs fixingCare plans were personalised but used different layouts and forms. This could make it harder for staff, especially agency staff, to find important information and provide consistent care.
“Everyone had a care plan in place but work was still required as care plans were in different formats or in a different layout or with different forms being used.” from the report
Limited activities
minorActivities were provided on two days a week, but some advertised activities did not happen. People said activities had declined and wanted more regular opportunities.
“There was room for development of activities to keep people meaningfully occupied.” from the report
Unnecessary monitoring records
minorStaff were completing some monitoring records for people who did not have the related risks. The manager agreed to review this, including whether records could affect people's dignity.
“Staff were being required to complete a full suite of monitoring records, such as bowel charts, where for the majority of people there were no risks.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff are now in post, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02What staffing levels are provided at busy times, such as mornings, and how are they checked against people's needs?
- 03Are all care plans now in one consistent format, and how do agency staff find the information they need?
- 04How many activities are now offered each week, and do activities requested by residents take place?
- 05Which monitoring records are still required for my relative, and how do you make sure they protect their dignity?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall quality of the care home, its premises and all five key questions; building work was in progress during the inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 June 2018 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Dalvey House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
37 live-in carers within about an hour of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,000 to £1,340 a week. 26 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We could not have managed without her calm, reassuring presence and practical knowledge and skill in caring and supporting both my husband and the family and I.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.