CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dove House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and managed, but some medicines records needed more detail and one recruitment file was incomplete when checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this focused inspection. Inspectors noted that staff had training and the service worked in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this focused inspection. Inspectors reported that the service was focused on people and provided person-centred care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this focused inspection. Inspectors reported that people's views were listened to and used to improve the service.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure, quality checks and an open culture. One area of health and safety checks needed more oversight, and the manager took action after this was discussed.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care, with some records and checks needing improvement.
The home provides personal care for up to 20 older people. There were 17 people living there when inspectors visited. The inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 December 2023.
Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, a relative, a visitor and staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, recruitment files, training records, policies, audits and safety checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were generally handled safely, and the home was clean. Staff were described as caring and person-centred, and people's views were used to improve the service.
Some improvements were needed. One recruitment file did not contain all the required checks, some medicines records needed more detail, and one area of health and safety checks needed closer oversight. The manager said action had been taken or would be taken.
Safe care
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood how to raise safeguarding concerns.
“People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm.” from the report
Staff availability
Inspectors saw staff respond when people needed help, including responding quickly to call bells.
“We observed staff provided support to people when this was needed and responded quickly to call bells when these were used.” from the report
Medicines support
Medicines were generally given safely and as prescribed. Staff who administered them had training and competency checks.
“People were supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
People's involvement
People and staff were involved in the running of the home and in decisions about care.
“People and staff were involved in the running of the service and the care they received.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine protocols and administration records did not contain enough detail to show that medicines were offered consistently and their effects monitored.
“Some medicine protocols and administration records required more detail to help show people's medicines were offered consistently and their effectiveness monitored.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingOne of the three recruitment files checked did not show all the required checks. The manager later provided information showing the file had been updated.
“1 staff recruitment file did not show all the required recruitment checks had been completed.” from the report
Health and safety oversight
needs fixingOne area of health and safety checks needed closer oversight. The manager said this would be checked going forward.
“We found 1 area of health and safety checks required more oversight.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to medicine protocols and administration records since the inspection?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are offered consistently and that their effectiveness is monitored?
- 03How do you make sure every new member of staff has all required recruitment checks before working at the home?
- 04Which area of health and safety checks needed more oversight, and how is it now monitored?
- 05What ratings or recent evidence can you provide for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not rated in this focused inspection?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the report does not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 2024 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, March 2018
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 February 2018. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, kind relationships and care that reflected people's choices and interests.
The home had improved its infection control and medicines management since the previous inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, and inspectors found no serious risks or concerns requiring a change of rating.
Safer medicines management
Inspectors found that medicines were administered according to prescriptions, recorded correctly and kept securely. People's choices were respected if they refused a medicine.
“People's medicines were now safely managed and we saw people were offered their medicines with a drink.” from the report
Enough familiar staff
People said staff responded quickly when help was needed. Staff worked together to cover absences, supporting continuity of care without agency staff.
“It's important to us that people get the care from staff they know. We don't use any agency staff; if something needs covering, then we will work together and cover it ourselves.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, listened to them and protected their privacy and dignity. People were supported to remain independent where possible.
“The staff are delightful. They are lovely and always have time and a kind word for everyone.” from the report
Personalised activities and support
People could choose activities and how to spend their time. Staff used people's histories, interests and preferences to shape their support.
“People had the opportunity to develop a memory book.” from the report
Active quality checks
The manager and provider checked important areas of the service and acted when issues were identified. The manager also worked with health professionals to improve care.
“Where any concerns were identified, action was taken to ensure people were safe.” from the report
End of life care was not assessed
minorThe report does not judge how the home provides end of life care because nobody was receiving this care during the inspection.
“At the time of this inspection the provider was not supporting people with end of life care, so therefore we have not reported on this.” from the report
- 01How would you support my relative if they needed end of life care?
- 02How do you make sure medicines are given as prescribed and recorded correctly?
- 03How would you keep my relative's care plan up to date if their needs changed?
- 04What activities and community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How do you involve relatives in care reviews and decisions, with the person's consent?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; end of life care was not assessed because nobody was receiving it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 March 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 Dove House Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 June 2013.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.