CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Daubeney Gate
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment checks, medicines management, fire safety and infection control were generally suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, and they were supported with food, healthcare and communication. Some training records had gaps, supervision had not previously been regular, and two DoLS authorisations had expired.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw warm relationships, and relatives were positive about the support their family members received.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and reflected people's routines, interests and communication needs. People were supported with activities, relationships, complaints and future planning.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks and records had not been consistently completed. The provider had started improvements, but inspectors needed to see that these were sustained and became part of everyday practice.
What inspectors found, April 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needed to improve its management checks and records.
This was a comprehensive announced inspection on 1 and 7 March 2018. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home supported six adults with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices. Medicines, staffing, cleanliness, care planning, activities and contact with health professionals were generally managed well.
The home was rated Good in four areas: Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because checks, staff supervision, meetings and reviews had not always been completed consistently. The provider had started making improvements, but inspectors wanted evidence that these would continue.
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully. Relatives said staff knew people well and maintained a caring culture during a period of staff change.
“We observed that staff treated people with warmth and kindness.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
People said they received medicines on time. Records showed medicines were administered accurately and checked through regular audits.
“Records showed the medication administration records (MAR) were completed accurately by staff and regular medicines audits took place to check people consistently received their medicines safely.” from the report
People's safety
Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff at the time of the visit, and appropriate recruitment checks.
“At the time of our inspection, there were enough staff to support people safely.” from the report
Management checks were inconsistent
needs fixingThe home had not consistently checked whether care and records were up to date. Inspectors wanted to see that recent improvements were sustained.
“The governance of the service and records management had not always been undertaken consistently.” from the report
Staff supervision and meetings
needs fixingStaff had not previously received regular supervision and appraisals. Only one staff meeting had taken place in the previous year, although the manager had begun addressing this.
“Staff had not previously received regular supervision and annual appraisals of their work.” from the report
Care reviews were not always up to date
needs fixingSome people's care and health information had not been reviewed regularly. One health plan had not been reviewed since 2015.
“We saw that one person had a 'my health' plan that had not been reviewed since 2015.” from the report
Expired DoLS authorisations
needs fixingTwo authorisations had expired, including one that had been out of date for thirteen months. An application was submitted quickly after this was noticed.
“Authorisation for two people had elapsed; for one person this had been for a thirteen month period.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure staff training, supervision and appraisals are completed and recorded on time?
- 02How often are each person's care plans and health plans reviewed, and how do you check that no review is missed?
- 03How do you track DoLS applications and renewals so that authorisations do not expire?
- 04How often are staff meetings and quality checks carried out now?
- 05What evidence can you show that the improvements identified after this inspection have continued?
This was a second comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the previous overall rating was Good and the home remained Good overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 April 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 Daubeney Gate
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 March 2011.
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 Milton Keynes
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 £1,260 a week. 90 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.