CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dickley Court
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Dickley Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support, with well-led changing from Outstanding to Good.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 13 September 2019. One inspector spoke with three people using the respite service, three care staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, staff records, audits, incidents and policies.
The home was being used as a short-break respite service for people with learning disabilities. The report also considered the community-based care agency separately where the evidence differed. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs well.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection, although Well-led had previously been Outstanding. No breaches or enforcement action are reported.
People felt safe
Inspectors found people were comfortable and safe, with staff who understood safeguarding and individual risks.
“People felt safe and comfortable living at the home.” from the report
Person-centred planning
Care plans covered people's needs, preferences, interests and communication methods. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“Care plans were very person centred and described people's likes, dislikes and then planned around people's choices.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff encouraged people to take part in their own care and develop everyday skills rather than doing everything for them.
“Staff were extremely proactive in encouraging people to maintain and improve their independence.” from the report
Activities and friendships
People could take part in activities they enjoyed, access the community and develop friendships.
“Short breaks give people the opportunity to make friends, try new activities or learn new skills.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Managers used audits, feedback and learning from incidents to improve the service.
“The systems to monitor the quality of the service were robust and effective.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you assess and review my relative's individual risks, including mobility, eating and drinking, medicines and distress?
- 02How will you support my relative to communicate choices and preferences if they do not communicate verbally?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative during short breaks?
- 04How are 'as and when' medicines offered, recorded and reviewed?
- 05If my relative ever needs end-of-life care, how would you involve them, their family and other professionals in planning it?
This was an announced planned inspection covering all five questions, with evidence reported separately for the short-break respite service and the community-based care agency where relevant; no one was receiving end-of-life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 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, January 2017
Dickley Court was rated Good overall, with Outstanding leadership, kind and person-centred care, and a recommendation to improve employment-history checks.
Inspectors visited on 29 and 30 November 2016. The inspection was announced. They spoke with people using the services, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care files, staff records, medicines, complaints, incidents, audits and other records.
The home and agency were found to be safe, effective, caring and responsive. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Their care plans included detailed guidance about communication, health, behaviour, daily routines and personal choices. People were also supported with activities, work experience, independence and contact with family and friends.
The well-led rating was Outstanding. Inspectors found an open and inclusive culture, strong involvement from people and relatives, and regular checks on quality. The overall rating of Good means the service met the expected standards in the areas inspected, although inspectors identified one recruitment record issue that needed improvement.
Kind, individual care
Staff knew people's preferences, histories and support needs. Care was planned around each person rather than delivered in the same way to everyone.
“People were treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in their care reviews and staff recruitment. They were supported to make choices, develop skills, use the community and work towards their hopes and dreams.
“People were supported and encouraged to be as independent as they wanted to be.” from the report
Safe support
Inspectors found enough trained staff, appropriate risk assessments, safe medicines systems and arrangements to protect people from abuse and financial abuse.
“People's medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Strong leadership
The service had regular audits, meetings and feedback from people and relatives. Inspectors found that managers and staff shared a clear commitment to person-centred support.
“There was a positive, open and inclusive culture within the organisation that had the people using the services at the heart of everything they did.” from the report
Useful community opportunities
People were supported to take part in education, activities and work experience. The report describes a local shop created to help people gain skills and confidence.
“This opportunity had made a real difference to people, they were making new friends and growing in confidence.” from the report
Employment history checks
needs fixingTwo of the four staff files inspected did not contain full employment histories, and gaps had not always been explored or recorded. Inspectors made a recommendation for this to be improved.
“Two of the four files we checked did not contain the full employment history of the applicant with any gaps in employment explored.” from the report
- 01How have you changed your recruitment process since the inspection to make sure all employment gaps are explored and recorded?
- 02Which parts of the service would my relative use: the short-break respite service, supported living support, or both?
- 03How will my relative be involved in writing and reviewing their care and support plan?
- 04What activities, community opportunities, education or work experience could be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative's communication needs, medicines and any behaviour that may put them or others at risk?
This was an announced inspection of both the accommodation-based short-break respite service and the community-based domiciliary care agency, with findings reported separately where appropriate. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 2017 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 Dickley Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 July 2015.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.