Dunraven House and Lodge

“The assessment was comprehensive, which meant we looked at key areas including infection prevention control, medicines management, staffing, choice and control, governance, management, leadership, safeguarding people and closed cultures. During the last assessment we found the service was in breach of legal regulations relating to person centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding and governance. During this assessment we found enough improvements had been made and this meant the service was no longer in breach of regulations.”

“There were some people who had learning disabilities and autistic people using the service, for these people we assessed the service in line with ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people were treated with respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. During the previous assessment, shortfalls were found in Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture and closed cultures were identified. During this assessment we found improvements had been made. However, further improvements were required in relation to promoting independence, choice and person-centred care. People and staff needed further time to embed a change of culture in relation to how people received their care and support.”

“Managers were in the process of embedding a proactive culture that prioritised safety, openness, transparency and learning. Staff demonstrated an understanding of risk management, enabling people to take positive risks while remaining safe.”

“People were involved in decisions about their safety, and care plans contained detailed risk assessments tailored to individual needs. Leaders worked collaboratively with healthcare professionals.”

“During the day, there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs, and continuity of care was maintained even during sickness. Recruitment processes were effective. However, after 8:30pm we saw there were only 2 staff to support 33 people. This meant the provider could ensure people’s immediate needs were met in a timely manner.”

“The provider demonstrated lessons learned from incidents and shared these through team meetings to ensure improvement. People told us they felt safe, and they trusted staff, and relatives confirmed the service was highly responsive and inclusive.”

“Some areas of the environment required improvement. However, we saw the provider had taken steps in other areas of the home to create some comfortable and bright living and communal areas.”