CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dugdale House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe recruitment, appropriate medicines management and detailed individual risk assessments. The home was clean and had safety checks and emergency plans.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training, supervision and support, including training for individual needs. People were supported with choices, eating and drinking, weight management and contact with health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, respectful and understanding. People were supported to make choices, maintain independence and communicate in ways they could understand.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were person-centred and regularly reviewed. People were supported with activities, community access, individual goals and contact with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable management, a positive culture and systems to monitor care, medicines, care plans and health and safety. Staff said they could raise issues and make suggestions.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with all five areas rated Good.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 30 January 2019. They spoke with people living there, a relative, staff and the registered manager. They observed care and checked care records, staff records, training information, daily logs and quality checks.
Seven people were living at the home. Inspectors found that people received safe, effective and caring support. Staff understood people's needs and preferences, supported their choices and helped them maintain independence. Medicines, staffing and recruitment were managed appropriately.
People were supported with food, health appointments, activities and contact with the local community. Care plans were detailed and regularly reviewed. The home had a complaints process and inspectors found an open culture where people, relatives and staff could raise issues.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection was also Good, and inspectors said the evidence continued to support that rating.
Safe staffing
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, including one-to-one support where required. Inspectors saw a calm atmosphere and timely staff support.
“The service ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people's needs and support them to stay safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff understood people well and treated them with patience, dignity and compassion. People were encouraged to be independent and involved in everyday decisions.
“At all times staff were polite and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, goals, histories and support needs. People were offered choices about food, activities and their daily care.
“Care plans were very detailed; person centred and provided good information for staff to follow.” from the report
Good leadership
Inspectors found an open culture and supportive management. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to seek views and check the quality of care.
“The registered manager and provider had many management systems in place to oversee and check the quality of care people received and the condition of the environment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and manage the specific risks affecting my relative, while still supporting their independence?
- 02How will my relative be supported to communicate choices if they cannot explain them verbally?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, and how would these reflect their interests and goals?
- 04How would you involve me in care reviews and keep me informed about changes in my relative's health or care?
- 05How do you check that medicines, care plans and risk assessments remain accurate and up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service, covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, September 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one medicines recording error.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 and 11 August 2016. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, relatives and a visiting care professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. Inspectors found enough trained staff, suitable risk assessments, safe medicines management and support to access healthcare. People were treated with dignity, involved in decisions and supported with food, activities, family relationships and personalised care plans.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. There was one recording gap on a medicines administration record, but inspectors were satisfied the medicine had been given. The previous inspection in January 2014 found the home was meeting the legal requirements in the areas examined.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive interactions. Staff understood people's preferences, used their preferred names and respected privacy and dignity.
“Staff were patient, supportive and understanding of people's needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, preferences, interests and hobbies. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“People's personalised care plans detailed information about their care needs, their history, preferences, interests and hobbies.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, such as bowling, cinema visits, parks, pubs and shopping. Staff also encouraged people to do as much as they could for themselves.
“People were supported to take part a range of activities that interested them.” from the report
Trained staff and healthcare support
Staff had training relevant to the people living at the home and knew their care needs. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments and maintain their health.
“Staff were trained in areas that were relevant to the needs of the people who lived at the home.” from the report
Open management and monitoring
The manager was described as approachable and supportive. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather feedback and monitor care.
“The provider had a robust quality monitoring process in place.” from the report
Medicines record gap
minorOne person's medicines administration record had gaps for the morning of the second inspection day. Inspectors were satisfied the medicine had been given, but the manager said this would be recorded as an error and the staff member retrained.
“We found that one person's had gaps for the morning of the second day of our inspection.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to ensure every medicine administration is recorded correctly?
- 02How will you make sure staff training and supervision remain up to date for my relative's needs?
- 03How will my relative be involved in creating and reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities are available, and how are they chosen around each person's interests?
- 05If my relative cannot make a particular decision, how will you record and review the decision-making process?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors reviewed two people's care records and all eight people's medicines. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 2016 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 Dugdale House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.