CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at DIL House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed and monitored, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and infection control measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed before admission and reviewed as they changed. Staff had induction and ongoing training, and worked with health and social care professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care and supported to work towards personal goals.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised to people's needs, preferences and communication styles. People were supported with activities, outings and contact with family and friends.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits, checks and a positive culture where people could raise concerns. This rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous focused inspection.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a minor issue about visitor instructions fixed during the visit.
This was a planned inspection of all five areas CQC rates. One inspector visited on 9 September 2021, spoke with three people and two staff, and checked care, medicine and management records.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in decisions about their care. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were sufficient, and people's health, dietary and communication needs were recorded and reviewed.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. A previous recommendation about medicines had been completed. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good since the previous focused inspection.
Safe medicines management
Medicines records were completed properly, audits were carried out, and controlled drugs were recorded safely. This addressed the previous inspection's recommendation.
“At this inspection the improvements we recommended had been implemented and systems were now compliant.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
People said they felt valued and cared for. Inspectors found that staff respected people's dignity, privacy, choices and equality.
“People told us they felt valued and cared for.” from the report
Personalised care
Support plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication. Staff knew people well and supported them to make choices and reach their goals.
“Care and support was individualised and people we spoke with felt staff addressed their particular needs and wishes.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in practical, therapeutic and social activities. The home also supported regular contact with family and friends.
“There were a number of activities and outings arranged at the service.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home used internal and external checks to identify and address issues. Its Well-led rating improved to Good.
“This key question has improved to good.” from the report
Visitor instructions
minorInformation about the process for visitors entering the building was not as clear and robust as it should have been. Inspectors raised this and the issue was addressed immediately.
“The process for visitors entering the building was not communicated as robustly as it could have been.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure all visitors receive clear instructions before entering the home?
- 02How will you manage and review my relative's medicines, including any controlled drugs?
- 03How will my relative be involved in decisions about their care and personal goals?
- 04What activities and support will be available to help my relative keep in touch with family and friends?
- 05How will you respond if my relative's mental health needs or communication needs change?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, following an earlier focused inspection that looked only at Safe and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 October 2021 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, October 2020
Dignity in Life Ltd was inspected but not rated overall; inspectors found safe care, but leadership Requires Improvement because medicines systems and oversight needed strengthening.
This was the home's first inspection. It was a focused inspection during the COVID-19 period, looking only at safe and well-led care. One inspector spoke with two people, managers and care staff, and reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
Inspectors rated safe care Good. They found suitable staffing, safeguarding training, risk assessments, infection control arrangements and recruitment checks. Care plans were personal to each person, and accidents, complaints and incidents were recorded and followed up.
Leadership was rated Requires Improvement. Controlled drug records did not meet current guidance, although this was corrected immediately. Policies were not specific to this service, and managers were unclear about some notifications that must be sent to the CQC. Because this was a focused inspection, the home was not given an overall rating.
Safeguarding and staffing
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. Rotas and observations showed staffing levels were sufficient for people's needs.
“Staff rotas and observations on the day demonstrated staffing levels were sufficient to meet the needs of the people who used the service.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans included personal and health information. People were involved in planning their care and discussing their goals and wishes.
“It was clear that people who used the service were fully involved in their own care planning and led discussions around their goals and wishes.” from the report
Open culture
People and staff felt able to raise issues without fear of discrimination. Complaints were dealt with and audits were used to identify problems.
“There was a comfortable, open culture within the home and people who used the service, and staff, felt confident to discuss any issues without risking discrimination.” from the report
Controlled drug records
seriousThere was no controlled drugs register, and administration records were not witnessed by a second staff member as required. The register was ordered immediately, but the report recommended checking current NICE guidance.
“There was no CDs register and records of administration of these medicines had been signed by one staff member and not witnessed by a second member of staff as required.” from the report
Policies were not service-specific
needs fixingSome policies related to another type of service rather than this home. The provider was working on updating them.
“Policies and procedures were in place but related to the company's other service type and did not have service specific guidance and information.” from the report
Unclear CQC notifications
needs fixingManagers were not clear about which injuries and hospital admissions had to be reported to the CQC. They agreed to seek advice when unsure.
“The management team were a little unclear about which notifications needed to be sent to CQC with regard to injuries and hospital admissions.” from the report
- 01How do you now record controlled drugs, and is every administration witnessed by a second staff member?
- 02Have all policies and procedures been updated so they are specific to this home?
- 03How do managers decide when an injury, hospital admission, allegation of abuse or death must be notified to the CQC?
- 04What regular checks now confirm that medicines are being managed in line with current guidance?
- 05How will you show families that the improvements identified at this inspection have been maintained?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only, so the other three key questions were not assessed and the home was not given an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 October 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 DIL House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Bolton
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.