CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dulas Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, and inspectors found safe recruitment, risk assessments, enough staff and suitable medicines systems. They noted that some cupboards and rooms were accessible, but locks were replaced during the inspection, and there were minor medicines recording issues.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, and staff worked with health professionals. People received support with food, drink and healthcare, and staff had training, supervision and appraisals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, discreet and respectful. People and relatives said care was positive, and care plans showed involvement from people and their relatives.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Care plans were very personalised and activities reflected people's interests, former occupations and wishes. The home supported community links, dementia care, family involvement and end of life preferences.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had strong monitoring and learning systems, with regular audits and action plans. Inspectors also identified management issues about locks, cupboards and medicines records, which were addressed during or after feedback.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good overall, with Outstanding personalised care and activities, but minor medicines, privacy and access issues were found.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 March 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staffing information and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. It was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. It was rated Outstanding for Responsive, because care plans, activities and support were highly tailored to people's individual interests, needs and wishes.
People were described as safe, well supported and treated with dignity. Inspectors found enough staff and safe recruitment checks. They also found minor issues, including accessible cupboards and some medicines recording gaps. These issues were raised with the provider, and some were fixed during the inspection.
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's physical, emotional, psychological and social needs. Staff knew people's preferences and how they wanted support delivered.
“People had assessments, which covered all aspects of their physical, emotional, psychological and social needs.” from the report
Meaningful activities
The home offered activities linked to people's interests and past lives, including workshops, gardening, music, community visits and school links.
“There was a thoughtful and inclusive approach to organising interesting and meaningful occupations and activities for people, which enhanced the quality of their lives.” from the report
Dementia and mobility support
The provider employed an Admiral Nurse and a physiotherapist. These roles supported dementia care, family guidance and people's mobility.
“The provider employed a physiotherapist to support people enhance their mobility and an Admiral Nurse to provide support and guidance to people living with dementia.” from the report
Respect and dignity
Inspectors saw that staff respected privacy, dignity and independence. Bedrooms were for single occupancy and had en-suite facilities.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence was respected and maintained.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found missing counter-signatures when medicines changed during a cycle and unclear directions for some medicines taken when needed. These points were raised with the provider.
“There were some minor recording issues such as missing counter-signatures when changes to medicines were made mid-cycle” from the report
Access to restricted areas
needs fixingThe sluice and storage cupboards were accessible during the inspection. Locks were replaced during the inspection, but one cupboard had contained confidential information.
“During a check of the environment, we noted the sluice and storage cupboards were accessible, which posed a risk to people.” from the report
Call bell response times
minorSome feedback said call bells could be answered more quickly, particularly for people upstairs. The provider said this would be discussed at a residents' meeting.
“Call bell response times are sometimes a little slow; it's usually the residents upstairs.” from the report
Dementia signage
minorInspectors said the home had considered the needs of people living with dementia, but that signage could be clearer.
“There was some consideration of the needs of people living with dementia, although signage could be clearer” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines recording, including counter-signatures and directions for medicines taken when needed?
- 02How do you now make sure the sluice, storage rooms and cupboards are locked and confidential records are secure?
- 03Have call bell response times improved, especially for people living upstairs, and how are they monitored?
- 04What changes have been made to signage for people living with dementia?
- 05How will my relative's activities and personal interests be included in their care plan?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall service. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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.
Every inspection of Dulas Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has slipped, from Outstanding to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingdown from OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2016OutstandingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Outstanding
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 February 2011.
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
11 live-in carers within about an hour of Herefordshire, County of
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 £960 to £1,410 a week. 10 can care for a couple. 8 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.