CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury Dolphin Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable risk assessments and safe recruitment checks. Medicine systems were working safely at the inspection, after earlier medicine errors had led to new processes, training and supervision.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff received training and supervision. Annual staff appraisals had not been completed, although the home had identified this and was taking action.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful and had positive relationships with people. Inspectors saw people being involved in decisions, with privacy, dignity and independence supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication methods. People were supported with activities, community access, complaints and their individual wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open leadership, regular audits and systems for listening to people and staff. The provider and managers used improvement plans, meetings and feedback to monitor and improve the service.
What inspectors found, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with previous medicine errors addressed but staff appraisals still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 1 October 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, staff and professionals. They reviewed care and medicine records, staff files, training, complaints, meetings and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicine systems in place at the time of the visit.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Staff were described as kind and respectful. Care plans were personalised, communication needs were considered, and people had access to healthcare and support with food and drink.
The home had previously identified medicine errors and acted to improve its systems. However, staff had not received their annual appraisals, which had also been a shortfall at the previous inspection. The manager had added this to an improvement plan and said action was under way.
Kind and respectful staff
People had positive relationships with staff. Inspectors saw caring interactions and found that privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“People told us staff were kind and caring and they were well looked after.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences, strengths and communication methods. Staff knew people well and followed their agreed support.
“The care and support plans had been written in a sensitive and individualised style which evidenced that people and their families or advocate were involved and consulted with.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make everyday choices, use their own facilities and take part in activities. The home had introduced Active Support to help people do more for themselves.
“Active Support changes the style of support from 'caring for' to 'working with', it promotes independence and supports people to take an active part in their own lives.” from the report
Good community links
People were supported to access work, activities, transport and the local community. The home also worked with outside organisations to support people's opportunities.
“The service supported people to enjoy a range of activities and interests that were meaningful to them.” from the report
Open leadership
Managers were visible and approachable. People and staff were involved through meetings, surveys and regular discussions.
“The management team were visible in the service and were approachable and accessible.” from the report
Medicine errors before the inspection
seriousThe home reported earlier medicine errors linked to changes in dispensing. It responded with new systems, training, supervision and storage arrangements, and inspectors found medicines were being managed safely at the visit.
“Prior to the inspection the service identified a number of medicine errors had been made by staff due to changes in the way medicines were dispensed” from the report
Staff appraisals were overdue
needs fixingStaff had not received their annual appraisals. This had also been identified at the previous inspection, although the home had put action on its improvement plan and provided evidence that work was under way.
“However, we found staff had not received their annual appraisal which is used to identify staff needs and goals and support staff learning and development.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after the medicine errors, and how do you check that medicines continue to be given safely?
- 02Have all staff now received their annual appraisals, and how are future appraisals monitored?
- 03How would you support my relative's particular communication needs, preferences and independence?
- 04What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
- 05How would you support my relative if their health needs changed or they needed nursing care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the personal care provided; the home did not provide nursing care. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 November 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, April 2017
Shaftesbury Dolphin Court is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and staff appraisal work still needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 28 February 2017 by two inspectors. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, staff files, medicine records and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable recruitment checks and support for people's health, choices, independence and rights.
The home had sustained improvements found at the previous focused inspection in May 2016. Management quality checks were being used to drive further improvements. However, yearly staff appraisals had not all been completed, and staff did not always record information consistently.
The lift had been unreliable during 2016 and had affected some people's ability to attend work. The provider was working on longer-term improvements. People knew how to complain, and inspectors found that concerns were responded to.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient for people's needs. People said staff responded quickly when they needed help.
“There continued to be sufficient numbers of suitable staff to keep people safe and meet their needs.” from the report
Safer medicines
Management had responded to earlier medicine concerns by introducing regular audits and competency checks. Inspectors found no further errors after these systems were put in place.
“No errors had arisen since the implementation of these systems.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity and independence. People and relatives described positive relationships with staff.
“We observed staff interact with people in a kind and caring manner using sensitivity and humour at appropriate times.” from the report
Clear leadership
The manager had sustained earlier improvements and used quality checks and action plans to identify and address further issues.
“Quality monitoring of the service provided to people was evident and systems were in place which provided the registered manager and provider with current oversight.” from the report
Staff appraisals
needs fixingYearly appraisals had not been completed for all staff. The manager said these would be completed by the end of March 2017.
“Additionally, yearly appraisals had not been completed for all staff members.” from the report
Inconsistent records
needs fixingStaff recorded some information in different places, such as electronic records and paper charts. This made monitoring people's information more difficult.
“Although we observed that people were receiving care personalised to their needs staff were not consistent in their recording of information.” from the report
Unreliable lift
needs fixingThe lift had been out of service several times during 2016. This affected some people's ability to attend work, although the provider was planning an upgrade and staff checked on affected people.
“Several people had been affected by the out of service lift and were unable to attend their places of work.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now had their yearly appraisals, and how are staff development needs followed up?
- 02How do you make sure staff record information in the same place and in the same way?
- 03Has the lift been upgraded, and what happens if it is unavailable?
- 04How are medicine audits and staff competency checks carried out now?
- 05How are people and relatives asked for their views about the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and included observations, discussions with people, relatives, staff and managers, and checks of care, medicine, staffing and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 April 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 Shaftesbury Dolphin Court
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
51 live-in carers within about an hour of Southend-on-Sea
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 £1,200 a week. 44 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
“She was always cheerful and looking for ways to stimulate my mother. She became her "friend" and provided best care always.”
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.