CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Dane View Care Home With Nursing
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Risk assessments and care plans did not always give clear guidance about mobility and falls. Medicines records had unexplained gaps, medicine effects were not always recorded, and some medicine patches and needle disposal were not handled safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff training, consent arrangements and access to healthcare had improved. However, food and fluid records and some assessment documents were incomplete, so people's needs were not always fully recorded.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff listened to people, involved them in care decisions and responded promptly to protect privacy.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its rating was carried over from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management oversight had improved, but audits did not always identify problems and clinical checks were not always recorded. Senior staff were not always clear about their responsibilities for quality oversight.
What inspectors found, March 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; care was kind and safety had improved, but medicines, risk records and quality checks were still not reliable.
Inspectors visited on 9 and 10 January 2024. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care files, medicines records, recruitment files, training records and management documents.
The home had improved since its previous inadequate rating. People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with their care. Staff were caring, there were enough staff, training had improved and consent arrangements were now better.
Important problems remained. Records about falls, mobility, food, fluids, repositioning and medicines were incomplete or not always checked properly. The home remained in breach of the rules on safe care and treatment and good governance.
The home is no longer rated Inadequate and is no longer in special measures. However, it is still rated Requires Improvement overall, so CQC expects further action and will monitor progress.
Improved skin care
Skin and wound care had improved significantly since the previous inspection. No pressure-related injuries were found at the time of this inspection.
“Wound and skin care management had significantly improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff and said they were deployed effectively. Recruitment checks, including nursing registration and DBS checks, were in place.
“People were now supported by enough staff who were deployed effectively.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed patient, friendly interactions and found that people were involved in decisions about their care.
“People were respected by staff. We observed staff interacting with people in a friendly and caring way.” from the report
Improved training and consent
Staff received the training needed for their roles. DoLS authorisations were in place where required and staff had improved their understanding of consent.
“At this inspection, enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation 18.” from the report
Falls and care records
seriousGuidance about mobility and falls risks was still lacking. Care plans and risk assessments were not always consistent or robust, and some food, fluid and assessment records were incomplete.
“There was a continued lack of guidance in place for staff regarding people's mobility needs and falls risk.” from the report
Incomplete meal records
needs fixingSome food and fluid records did not contain enough detail about what people had eaten or drunk. The provider said staff were still getting used to the new digital recording system.
“People's food and fluid records were not always thoroughly completed.” from the report
- 01What specific changes have been made to ensure medicine administration records have no unexplained gaps?
- 02How are staff now given clear guidance about each person's mobility needs and falls risk?
- 03How will the new digital care-record system be checked to make sure food, fluid, repositioning and assessment records are complete?
- 04Who is responsible for each quality audit, and how will the home check that audits identify medicine and care-record errors?
- 05What progress has been made on the action plan sent to CQC, and when will each remaining safety problem be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led, linked to previous warning notices; Responsive was not inspected and its previous rating was used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2024 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, August 2023
Dane View Care Home With Nursing was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures after inspectors found serious safety, care and management failures.
Inspectors visited on three dates. Two visits were unannounced and one was announced. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, reviewed care and medicine records, checked staff files and examined the home's management systems.
People were at risk because safeguarding concerns were not always reported, health risks were poorly managed, medicines were not always stored or given safely, and infection control was weak. Staff deployment, recruitment, training and supervision also had important gaps.
Inspectors found that people's dignity was not always protected and that consent arrangements did not always follow the law. Care plans, communication, activities, food choices and involvement of relatives also needed improvement. The ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led were Inadequate. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Specialist diets
People who needed specialist diets because of swallowing difficulties were given meals that were suitable and safe. Staff knew where to find information about dietary needs.
“People who required specialist diets due to swallowing difficulties, were provided with meals appropriate and safe for their needs.” from the report
Open during inspection
The registered manager and provider engaged openly with inspectors and accepted feedback during the inspection.
“The registered manager and the provider were open and forthcoming throughout the inspection.” from the report
Staff approachability
Staff told inspectors that the registered manager was approachable and that they felt able to raise concerns.
“The registered manager is good, she listens if I need to say something.” from the report
Risk of avoidable harm
seriousPeople were at risk because wounds, falls, safeguarding incidents and other health risks were not managed consistently. Some incidents were not reported to the local authority.
“People were not always kept safe by the use of an effective safeguarding system and safeguarding incidents were not always reported to the local authority.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousAs-needed medicines were not always given safely. Staff competency checks were incomplete, medicines were found on the floor and storage temperatures were outside the required range.
“People prescribed 'as and when' required medicines were not managed safely.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousInspectors found dirty areas, poor separation of clean and soiled laundry, unsafe use of protective equipment and surfaces that were difficult to clean.
“Poor risk management, the unsafe use of medicines, and poor infection prevention and control measures, put people at risk of harm.” from the report
Staff skills and recruitment
seriousSome staff lacked relevant training, supervision or competency checks. Recruitment records did not always include references, full employment histories or qualification certificates.
“The provider failed to ensure staff were appropriately trained and competent. Staff did not receive suitable inductions or support.” from the report
Dignity and consent
seriousPeople were not always treated with dignity during personal care, meals or checks in bedrooms. Mental Capacity Act processes and care records did not always reflect people's rights and restrictions.
“The provider failed to ensure people's dignity and respect was protected.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits failed to identify important problems, and managers did not have effective oversight of care, staffing, medicines or legal authorisations.
“Quality assurance systems were not effective.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to prevent unsafe administration and storage of medicines, and how is every medicines worker's competency checked?
- 02How are wounds, pressure-area risks and falls risks now assessed, recorded and reviewed?
- 03How do you ensure safeguarding incidents are reported promptly to the local authority and that lessons are learned?
- 04Which staff have completed training in pressure-area care, continence care and palliative care, and how is their competence monitored?
- 05What has changed to improve relatives' involvement in care planning, activities, food choices and communication?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 2023 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 Dane View Care Home With Nursing
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- March 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Dane View Care Home With Nursing →
- August 2023InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Dane View Care Home With Nursing →
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 November 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester
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 £980 to £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
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.