CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dene Court Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, staffing levels were sufficient and medicines were administered safely. Improvements were needed in infection control on the first inspection day, including laundry room hygiene and staff understanding of PPE when serving meals, but these were addressed before the inspection ended.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were met by competent staff. The home worked well with health and social care professionals, and staff followed the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals described staff as kind and compassionate, and care plans included people's preferences. However, inspectors observed poor dignity and privacy during mealtimes and personal care. The detailed section records this key question as Requires Improvement, despite the overall ratings table showing Good.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's preferences and communication needs. Activities supported people's mood, appetite and social connections, and complaints had generally been handled appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were described as approachable and supportive, with systems to monitor quality and safety. Management and staff changes were being made to improve monitoring, accountability and the sharing of workload.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but dignity at mealtimes and during personal care needed improvement.
This was the first rated inspection since the current provider registered the home. Inspectors visited unannounced on 2 and 9 August 2022. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care and reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment files and training records.
People generally felt safe. Staff were safely recruited, medicines were given as prescribed and risks were assessed. Staff knew people well, although some care records did not reflect current risks and needs. Reviews had started, but had not been completed promptly because managers had been working on the floor during staffing difficulties.
Inspectors found good outcomes in safe, effective, responsive and well-led care. People and professionals praised staff kindness, skills and partnership working. However, inspectors saw people being supported in ways that did not always protect their dignity or privacy. Managers acted during the inspection, planned extra training and intended to reintroduce dignity champion roles.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to report safeguarding concerns, and recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“People were comfortable and relaxed with care staff who supported them and told us they felt safe.” from the report
Kind and individual care
Relatives and professionals were positive about staff kindness and the person-centred approach. Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, communication needs and important decisions.
“People, relatives and external professionals told us staff provided kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Good partnership working
Health and social care professionals said staff contacted them promptly, listened to advice and followed recommendations.
“External health and social care professionals said the team contacted them appropriately and promptly for support, listened to their advice and followed their recommendations.” from the report
Improving the environment
The provider had made extensive improvements, including new flooring, beds, security doors and equipment. Further changes to support independence for people living with dementia were planned.
“The provider had made comprehensive environmental improvements to the home to enhance the safety and quality of people's lives.” from the report
Dignity at mealtimes
needs fixingInspectors saw limited interaction during lunch. Food was continued when one person did not want it, and another person was fed by a staff member standing over them without eye contact or conversation.
“Staff continued putting food in one person's mouth, when they did not want it and kept spitting it out.” from the report
Privacy during personal care
needs fixingTwo people were supported to use a toilet in a corridor while the door was open. This exposed them and did not protect their dignity.
“The door was open, and the person was exposed which did not promote their dignity.” from the report
Care records not fully up to date
needs fixingSome care records did not reflect people's current risks and needs. Reviews were overdue, although the work had started and staff were being kept informed through handovers and summary sheets.
“Some of the information in care records did not reflect people's current risks and needs.” from the report
Infection control checks
minorInspectors found cleanliness and hygiene concerns in the laundry room on the first day. Staff were also unclear about PPE when serving meals. Both issues were addressed before the inspection ended.
“On the first day of the inspection we raised concerns about the cleanliness and hygiene of the laundry room.” from the report
Restricted visiting
needs fixingVisiting was limited to two visitors per person after a Covid-19 lockdown. Inspectors said this was not in line with the latest guidance, although managers had carried out a risk assessment and agreed the arrangement with families.
“Visiting was restricted to two visitors per person at a time.” from the report
- 01What has changed since inspectors saw people being supported without enough dignity or privacy?
- 02How will you check that staff protect people's dignity during mealtimes and personal care?
- 03Have all care plans now been reviewed so they reflect people's current risks and needs?
- 04What induction and training remains for the newly recruited staff team?
- 05What are the current visiting arrangements, and how were they decided?
This was an unannounced first rated inspection covering the home, the care provided and infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 October 2022 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the Covid-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 8 December 2020. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control because the home had a coronavirus outbreak.
Inspectors found the home had separated people who had tested positive from those who had not. Staffing had been increased where needed, and staff spent more time with people who might have felt isolated.
The home was using measures to reduce infection risk, including disposable cutlery and crockery, staff testing, and specialist cleaning equipment. Inspectors said they were assured about the main infection control arrangements.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a quality rating for the service or a standard rating for the other four questions.
Separate areas during the outbreak
The home organised the building so that people who had tested positive were not cared for in the same part of the building as people who had not tested positive.
“The home had been appropriately organised so people who had not tested positive for Covid-19 were not being cared for in the same part of the building as people who had tested positive.” from the report
Extra staffing and time
Staffing levels were increased where needed. Staff also spent more time with people to help reduce isolation.
“Staffing levels had been increased where needed and time spent with people increased to counteract the feelings of isolation they may be experiencing.” from the report
Infection prevention measures
The home used measures such as disposable cutlery and crockery to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Measures had been taken to minimise the risk of transmission of Covid-19, for example the use of disposable cutlery and crockery.” from the report
Staff testing
Staff were supported to carry out and record their weekly tests themselves, helping to reduce the effect of testing on staffing levels.
“Staff had been supported to perform and log their weekly test themselves, to minimise the impact of routine testing on staffing levels.” from the report
Cleaning equipment
The home had bought specialist cleaning equipment as part of its infection control arrangements.
“The home has purchased specialist cleaning equipment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are people who test positive for Covid-19 separated from other residents now?
- 02How do you manage visitors and reduce the risk of infection spreading?
- 03How often are residents and staff tested, and how are test results recorded?
- 04How would staffing levels change if there were another outbreak?
- 05What infection control arrangements and cleaning equipment are currently in use?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; it was inspected but not rated and did not assess the other four questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 December 2020 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 Dene Court Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Inspected but not ratedSafe: Good
- April 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- May 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 June 2019.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.