Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Delphine Court, Darlington.

Delphine Court in Darlington is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, caring for adults under 65 yrs, dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 1st May 2020

Delphine Court is managed by Lifeways Community Care Limited who are also responsible for 60 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Delphine Court
      48-50 Cockerton Green
      Darlington
      DL3 9EU
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01325352334
    Website:

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Requires Improvement
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-05-01
    Last Published 2019-03-19

Local Authority:

    Darlington

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

29th January 2019 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

About the service: Delphine Court provides care and accommodation for up to eight people who had a learning disability and/or autistic spectrum disorder. There were three people using the service at the time of our visit.

People’s experience of using this service:

On the first day of our visit we found fire doors propped open and hazardous items not stored securely. This was addressed by the service as soon as we pointed it out. As and when required medicines needed to be monitored more effectively with clear protocols put in place. Staff recruitment records needed to be available on site and references needed to be more robust.

People received their medicines when needed. Staff safeguarded people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed and action taken to address them. The provider ensured there were enough suitable staff working to support people safely.

Staff received training but supervision and appraisal records were not robust or met the providers frequency policy. People received support with food and nutrition, and staff helped them gain access o a wide range of healthcare professionals. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

We observed some staff were over-enthusiastic and did not readily pick up social cues from people about the level of engagement they wanted. Relatives were generally positive about the support their family members received from staff, who they described as caring and kind.

People received person-centred support based on their assessed needs and preferences. Support plans needed to have clear goals embedded. Clear complaints procedures were in place to address issues at the service.

The quality assurance process at the service was not robust as audits were not regular and did not address issues we found on our visit. Feedback from staff and relatives we spoke with said communications systems could be improved. Staff stated they felt supported by the registered manager. Systems were in place to ensure the voices of people, relatives and staff were heard. The service worked with other organisations and agencies to promote people’s health and wellbeing.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (Report published 16 October 2018).

Why we inspected: We received information of concern from the local authority safeguarding team and other professionals visiting the service. This inspection was brought forward due to the information we received.

Follow up: We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what immediate action they will take to improve the quality and safety of care provided to people. We will also meet with the provider to discuss this action plan.

16th October 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

The inspection visit took place on the 16 October 2017. We also spoke with a relative and healthcare professionals on 17 October 2017. This was an unannounced inspection which meant that the staff and provider did not know that we would be visiting.

The service was newly registered in December 2016 and so it had not been previously inspected or rated.

Delphine Court provides care and support for up to eight people who have a learning disability. On the day of our visit there was one person using the service and another person was due to transition [move in] to the service later that day.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

The person using the service was supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

Processes and procedures were in place to ensure people were protected from abuse and harm. Staff spoke confidently about the actions they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm.

Medicines were stored and managed appropriately. The service ensured staff were trained and their competency assessed prior to administering medicines.

Staff were recruited safely and were given appropriate training before they commenced employment. We discussed with the registered manager that staff files needed to accurately reflect all the pre-employment checks that had been carried out for new staff members as checks had sometimes been confirmed at a regional manager and human resources level, rather than with the service and registered manager. The registered manager stated they would review and amend this process straight away.

Staff had received specific training in managing the needs of people who used the service such as epilepsy and specific speech and language therapy approaches. There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the person and the staff team were supportive of the registered manager and of each other.

There was a regular programme of staff supervision in place and records of these were detailed and showed the home worked with staff to identify their personal and professional development.

The person’s care plans were person centred and had been well assessed. The home had developed plans such as communication systems, supported by speech and language therapists to help the person be involved in how they wanted their care and support to be delivered. The person was given choices and encouraged to take part in all aspects of day to day life at the home, including shopping, laundry and cooking. One person was transitioning into the home and we saw this had been planned and assessed so it was as smooth as possible.

The service encouraged the person to maintain their independence. Staff supported the person in a caring way. They were supported to be involved in the local community as much as possible and to use public transport and access regular facilities such as the local G.P, shops and leisure facilities.

A regular programme of staff meetings took place where issues were shared and raised. The service had a complaints procedure and staff told us how they could recognise if the person they were supporting was unhappy. The service met with the person regularly and recorded their views about activities and whether they were happy. A family member also told us the service kept them involved in their relative’s life. Professionals told us they were kept updated. This showed the service listened to the views of people.

There was a regular programme of auditing in place to check the safety and quality of the service be

 

 

Latest Additions: