CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found sufficient staffing, safe recruitment, risk assessments, safe medicines administration and suitable infection-control arrangements. Staff knew how to report possible abuse and incidents were reviewed for learning.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management arrangements, regular audits, open communication and a person-centred culture. The home worked with healthcare professionals and used audit findings to improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and effective management, with one care-record information gap identified and corrected.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 May 2023 by one inspector. The inspection was prompted by a random selection of services rated Good or Outstanding. Inspectors spoke with one person, a relative, the manager, four staff and two healthcare professionals. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
Inspectors rated Safe and Well-led as Good. They found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicines systems, risk assessments and infection-control arrangements. People were supported to make choices and access health and social care.
The home was described as open, person-centred and well managed. Audits were used to monitor care and improve systems. One audit found missing information about a person's care needs, but the leadership team corrected it.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. The overall Good rating used the current findings for Safe and Well-led and carried forward the other ratings from the previous inspection, published on 29 December 2017.
Safe staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, and recruitment checks were used to assess whether staff were suitable for their roles.
“We observed, and staffing rotas confirmed, there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Records showed when medicines had been given, and staff were trained and checked.
“People received their medicine as prescribed and the service had safe medicine administration systems in place.” from the report
Choice and independence
The home's approach supported people to have choice and control, use the least restrictive options and access health and social care in the community.
“The model of care at The Durnford Society maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found a clear management structure, regular quality checks and good communication with staff, relatives and healthcare professionals.
“There was a clear management and staffing structure and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Care-record information
needs fixingAn audit found missing information about one person's specific care needs. The leadership team identified and corrected the gap, but families should ask how records are kept complete over time.
“A recent audit of people's care records identified missing information in relation to a person's specific care needs which was identified and rectified by the leadership team.” from the report
- 01How do you check that each person's care plan contains all their current and specific care needs?
- 02What happens when a care-record gap is found, and how do you check that the correction has been followed?
- 03How are staff checked as competent to give medicines, and how are medicine records reviewed?
- 04How do you support my relative to make choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 05How do you involve relatives and healthcare professionals when care needs or risks change?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led; the other key-question ratings and the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection published on 29 December 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 July 2023 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, December 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with end-of-life wishes not yet fully recorded.
The inspection was unannounced and comprehensive. An inspector visited on 2 December 2017, then reviewed further records and information on 8 December. All four people living in the home were seen, although their communication needs meant inspectors relied mainly on observation, records and the views of relatives, staff and professionals.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, detailed care plans and good access to health professionals.
Staff understood people's individual communication methods and supported choice, independence, privacy and dignity. Inspectors also found positive relationships between people and staff, and a manager and provider who monitored quality and worked openly with outside professionals.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection in October 2015. The report noted that end-of-life wishes were not yet documented for everyone, although training and discussions with relatives were under way.
Kind, patient staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience and kindness. Staff understood when people needed reassurance, praise or guidance.
“People were supported by staff who were both kind and caring and we observed staff treat people with patience and kindness.” from the report
Individual communication
Staff understood people's different ways of communicating and used sign language, pictures and picture cards to support choices and independence.
“People's communication needs were effectively assessed and met and staff told us how they adapted their approach to help ensure people received individualised support.” from the report
Safe care
People had enough staff, individual risk assessments and trained staff to administer medicines safely.
“People received their medicines safely from staff who had completed appropriate medicine training.” from the report
Positive leadership
The provider and manager were described as open and person-centred. Quality and safety were monitored through audits and regular visits.
“The provider's governance framework, helped monitor the management and leadership of the service, as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not recorded
needs fixingPeople's end-of-life wishes were not yet documented. The provider had arranged training and was discussing plans with relatives.
“People's end of life wishes were not currently documented, however the provider had arranged end of life training for staff and was in discussion with relatives.” from the report
Complaints may be difficult to understand
minorA complaints procedure was available, but some people might not have been able to understand it fully. The manager said they would investigate and respond to concerns.
“A complaints procedure was available, however people currently living in the service would not necessarily fully understand the procedure.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's end-of-life wishes are recorded, reviewed and followed?
- 02How can a person with limited communication make a complaint or raise a concern?
- 03How do you check that staff understand my relative's particular communication methods and preferences?
- 04How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 05How do you use audits, staff feedback and relatives' views to improve the service?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with an additional visit on 8 December to review records and gather further information. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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 The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane →
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at The Durnford Society Limited - 31 Parkstone Lane →
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Plymouth
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.
8 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.