CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dormy Way
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk checks, suitable infection control and medicines that were stored and given safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and care plans were based on detailed assessments. People received help with food, healthcare and decision-making in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were offered choices and supported to maintain relationships and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported with their routines, interests, community activities and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management arrangements, good staff communication and regular checks on quality and safety. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with no breaches reported.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 30 May 2019. They observed care, spoke with people, relatives, managers and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
They found enough safely recruited staff, suitable training, clear risk assessments and safe medicines systems. The home was clean and well maintained. People were treated with kindness, involved in decisions and supported to keep their independence, access healthcare and take part in activities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous full inspection, published on 24 January 2017. No follow-up was required.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including extra support for community activities. Recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored, checked and administered by trained staff. Records indicated that people received medicines as prescribed.
“Medicines administration records (MAR) were completed correctly and indicated that people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built positive relationships and understood how people communicated, including through behaviour, gestures and facial expressions.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's routines, preferences, communication and goals. Staff supported people to make choices and work towards activities that mattered to them.
“People's care plans were clear and person centred.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's specific health risks, such as epilepsy, behaviour or difficulties with eating?
- 02How would staff support my relative to communicate choices and take part in decisions if they could not communicate verbally?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available that match my relative's interests and goals?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels remain flexible when people need extra support outside the home?
- 05How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and told about changes in their relative's care?
This was a planned comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 June 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
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with DoLS applications still awaiting local authority authorisation.
The inspection took place on 10 January 2017 and was carried out by one inspector. The inspector spoke with all four people living at the home, one relative, staff and other people involved in supporting residents. Records, care plans, medicines, staffing, training and quality checks were also reviewed.
Inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and positive relationships between staff and residents.
Care plans recorded people's preferences, communication methods and support needs. People were offered activities and outings, were supported to make choices, and had access to healthcare and a healthy diet.
Three people had DoLS applications because they could not leave the home independently. The applications had been completed but were not yet authorised by the local authority. The report says the manager and staff were acting in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse, and risks were assessed and reviewed.
“People were protected from abuse and harm and staff recognised the signs of potential abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with patience and respect. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and involving people in choices.
“Throughout our visit staff showed people kindness, patience and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's histories, preferences and communication methods. This included guidance for supporting someone who was non-verbal.
“Care plans were person centred and staff understood the importance of explaining to people what they were doing when providing support.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used regular checks, meetings and surveys to monitor the home. Staff said they could raise concerns and suggest changes.
“Regular audits took place to measure the quality and safety of the service provided.” from the report
DoLS authorisations were pending
minorThree people had applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The applications were complete but had not yet been authorised by the local authority at the time of inspection.
“Records showed that DoLS applications had been completed but these had not yet been authorised by the local authority.” from the report
- 01What is the current position of the three DoLS applications that were awaiting local authority authorisation?
- 02How are people's communication methods, preferences and changing needs reviewed and updated in their care plans?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty during the day and overnight, and what happens when staff are absent?
- 04What activities and community outings are currently available, and how often is the minibus available?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews and decisions about changes to a person's support?
This was a planned inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, including care records, medicines, staffing, training and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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 Dormy Way
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 December 2010.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.