CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dresden House Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Dresden House Limited was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections. They were also assured about shielding, social distancing, safe admissions, personal protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks.
The home had shared updated visiting arrangements with relatives. Where visits were restricted, people could use video and telephone calls. Inspectors also found individual risk assessments and support for staff wellbeing.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a quality rating for the home or for the Safe question.
Clear visiting arrangements
Relatives were given a visiting procedure, and it was updated as government guidance changed. Booking times allowed the home to sanitise between visits.
“The provider had shared their visiting procedure with relatives, which was updated as government guidance changed.” from the report
Maintaining contact
When visits were restricted, the home used video and telephone calls to help people stay in touch with loved ones.
“When visits had been restricted other methods were used to ensure people continued to have contact with their loved ones such as, video and telephone calls.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the environment clean. Extra cleaning and new equipment were being used to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The environment was clean. Additional cleaning had been implemented and new equipment had been purchased to help lower the risk of cross transmission.” from the report
Individual risk assessments
Risk assessments had been completed for people and staff in higher-risk groups, to help support their safety.
“Individualised risk assessments had been completed to ensure people and staff in high risk groups were supported to remain safe.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
Staff were supported by the registered manager during periods of anxiety and were directed to outside wellbeing services.
“Staff were supported by the registered manager during periods of anxiety and staff had been signposted to external wellbeing services.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How is the visiting procedure currently shared with relatives and updated when guidance changes?
- 02How do you make sure visiting areas and equipment are sanitised between visits?
- 03How are people and staff in high-risk groups currently supported through individual risk assessments?
- 04How do you currently provide infection testing and make sure protective equipment is used safely?
- 05What support is available to staff who feel anxious or need wellbeing help?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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, November 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that mental capacity and best-interest records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 23 October 2018. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and quality checks.
People were found to be safe and cared for kindly. Staff knew people well, there were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, and people had access to food, activities and healthcare.
The main shortfall was under Effective. Formal mental capacity assessments and records explaining best-interest decisions were not always in place. The overall rating was Good, with Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led rated Good, and Effective rated Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse.
“People were safe living at Dresden House. One person told us, "I am safe here I can get about and the staff help me if I need them".” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed supporting people in a friendly and caring way. Privacy, dignity and independence were promoted.
“We observed people were supported in a kind and caring way in a relaxed and friendly manner.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors saw staff available in communal areas and answering call bells promptly. People and relatives said staffing was good.
“We saw when people were in their rooms they had buzzers available for them and staff answered these in a timely manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and communication methods. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Staff knew people well and knew their needs and preferences.” from the report
Learning from problems
The provider monitored incidents and audits and took action when they identified areas for improvement.
“Incident and accidents were monitored and analysed so trends for people and in the home, could be identified.” from the report
Incomplete mental capacity records
seriousFormal capacity assessments were not always completed, and records did not always show how best-interest decisions had been reached. This was particularly relevant where restrictions or equipment such as bed rails were used.
“When capacity assessment and best interests decisions were needed they were not always in place for all people.” from the report
- 01Have all residents who may lack capacity had a formal capacity assessment for each relevant decision?
- 02How do you record and review best-interest decisions, including decisions about bed rails or other restrictions?
- 03Which Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications are still being considered, and how are less restrictive options reviewed?
- 04How will you make sure the Requires Improvement rating for Effective has been addressed?
- 05What support and activities would be available if my relative needed end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; end-of-life care was not assessed because the home was not supporting people with it at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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 Dresden House Limited
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Stoke-on-Trent
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 £1,190 a week. 93 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“She's shown compassion, patience and a level of understanding that no other carer has given.”
“She maintained a great environment for mum both with the tidiness and cleanliness of the house and Mum and with her caring and understanding attitude.”
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.