The last inspection of this home took place on 06 and 07 October 2015. The home was awarded a rating of 'Requires Improvement.' The home was found to be in breach of the regulation relating to safe care. At the last inspection we asked the provider to take action to make improvements around risk assessments, record keeping and providing a dementia friendly environment, and this action has been completed.

Dovedale Court is located in Ingol, a residential area of Preston. A bus link to Preston town centre is nearby. The home provides accommodation for up to 32 adults requiring help with personal and nursing care. The home is divided into two units. The Tessymann unit is a dedicated nursing unit for people with complex mental health needs and is based on the first floor. On the ground floor is the Memory Lane Unit which is residential care. There are separate secure gardens available for both units of the home to the rear. When we inspected there were 31 people living at the home.

The home is registered to provide accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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.

During our last inspection, we found risks were not always managed and addressed. While the Tessymann unit had systems to manage and lessen the risk, we found systems on the Memory Lane unit did not always meet the needs of all people who lived on the unit. During this inspection, we looked at how risks to people were being managed. We found people were protected from risks associated with their care because the registered manager had completed risk assessments, which provided updated guidance for staff to keep people safe.

During the last inspection we made a recommendation the registered provider worked within good practice guidelines to develop a dementia friendly environment. During this inspection we looked at the premises and found it was suitable for the care and support provided.

During our last inspection at the home, we found there were concerns around record keeping we made a recommendation around this. During this inspection we reviewed the records and found improvements had been made.

People who lived at Dovedale Court told us they felt safe and supported by staff and the management team.

We looked at how reporting of safeguarding incidents were being managed and found people were protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood how to identify and report them.

We looked at how accidents and incidents were being managed. There was a central record for accident and incidents to monitor for trends and patterns and the management had oversight of these.

We checked whether the home was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We found mental capacity had been considered and written consent to various aspects of care and treatment was observed on people's files.

We checked care records and saw these were written in a person centred way. Staff took note of the records and provided personalised care.

We found there were quality monitoring systems to help drive up improvements in the home. This helped to ensure people were living in a safe environment.

People were protected by suitable procedures for the recruitment of staff. We saw records which showed the provider had carried out checks. This was done to ensure staff had the required knowledge and skills, and were of good character before they were employed at the home.

We found the home was pro-active in supporting people to have sufficient nutrition and hydration. People said the quality of the food was good. One person said, “The meat is tender and tasty.” Care plans showed where appr

This unannounced inspection took place on 06 and 07 October 2016.

Dovedale Court is located in Ingol, a residential area of Preston. A bus link to Preston town centre is nearby. The home provides accommodation for up to 32 adults requiring help with personal and nursing care. The home is divided into two units. The Tessymann unit is a dedicated nursing unit for people with complex mental health needs and is based on the first floor. On the ground floor is the Memory Lane Unit which is residential care. There are separate secure gardens available for both units of the home to the rear.

There was not a registered manager in place. 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. We spoke with the regional director about the arrangements for ensuring there was a registered manager at the home. They advised us a manager had been recruited and had started the registration process with the Commission. We looked upon our information system which confirmed this. The manager was unavailable at the time of the inspection visit as they were completing their induction at another Barchester Healthcare Homes limited home.

The service was last inspected on 15 May 2014. At this inspection we identified no concerns and found the service was meeting all standards we assessed.

At this comprehensive inspection visit carried out on 06 and 07 October 2016, we received positive feedback from people who lived at the home and relatives. Staff were described as kind, caring and hard working.

Although people told us they felt safe we found risks were not consistently managed and addressed. Whilst the Tessymann unit had systems in place to manage and mitigate risk, we found systems in place on the Memory Lane unit did not consistently meet the needs of all people who lived on the unit. This placed people at risk of harm. This was a breach of Regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act (2008) Regulated Activities 2014.

Observations of interactions between staff and people who lived at the home demonstrated people were happy and content. On the days of the inspection visit, we observed staff offering comfort to people who were upset.

People told us they were supported to remain busy with activities if they wished. We observed the activities coordinator carrying out activities taking place on the first day of our inspection visit.

We received mixed feedback about staffing levels. Staff on the Tessymann unit told us staffing levels enabled them to meet the needs of the people who lived on the unit. Staff on the ground floor unit told us they were busy and could not always meet people’s needs in a timely manner. We found deployment of staff on the ground floor was not always sufficient to meet people’s needs.

Care plans were in place for people who lived at the home. Care plans covered support needs and personal wishes. Plans were reviewed and updated at regular intervals and information was sought from appropriate professionals as and when required. We noted organisational policy was not always followed on the Memory Lane unit, which resulted in one person not having a care plan developed in the required time. We have made a recommendation about this.

People’s healthcare needs were monitored and referrals were made to health professionals in a timely manner when health needs changed. Consent was gained wherever appropriate.

Suitable arrangements were in place for managing and administering medicines. Records were concise and complete and medicines were secured in line with current guidance. Regular audits of medicines took place.

Suitable recruitment procedures were in place to ensure people employed to work at the home were of a satisfactory standard for

During our inspection to this location we spoke with six people who lived at Dovedale Court and some relatives. We received all positive comments. People told us that their needs were being met by a kind and caring staff team. They said independence was promoted and they were able to make decisions and choices about what they wanted to do, whilst living at the home.

We found robust recruitment procedures had been adopted by the home and those living at Dovedale Court looked comfortable in the presence of staff members. People we spoke with were very complimentary about the staff team and the manager of the home. The environment was, in general clean and hygienic. Methods for monitoring the quality of service provided had been established. Systems had been developed, in order to protect the health and safety of those living at the home.

Comments from those living at the home and their relatives included:

"The staff are very nice with me."

"This place is A1."

"I am quite content here. It is very homely and comfortable."

"As far as homes go, this one is just fine. I am happy with the care my mum receives."

"This is the best place ever."

During our inspection we assessed standards relating to care and welfare and how people consented to the care and treatment they received. We also looked at recruitment practices, infection control and monitoring the quality of service provision. We did not identify any concerns in any of the outcome areas we assessed.

We spoke with several residents and relatives during our visit to this location and the responses we received were all positive.

Comments from people living at the home:

"The food is always very good. We never get a poor meal. I have had two dinners today. We are always asked if we want more."

"It is a lovely place this is. I am quite comfortable here and it is always nice and warm."

"They (the staff) are all brilliant."

Comments from relatives:

"I cannot think of anything that makes me worried about my relative being here."

"Mum always looks content and happy. She is always clean and dressed appropriately."

"My mother is very happy here and she is hard to please, so that says it all."

This inspection was completed by one Adult Social Care inspector. The inspector gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected during the course of two working days, to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

At the time of our inspection the manager had applied and was going through the registration process. The home was registered to accommodate 32 people and currently had three vacancies.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, and their relatives, care staff, the manager and from looking at records. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People we spoke with who used the service told us they felt well looked after.

People told us that the staff were kind and responsive to their needs. Pre- admission assessments had been carried out by senior staff and care plans contained sufficient information to ensure staff had the correct information to provide safe and effective care.

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to protect people they supported. People we saw were not being put at unnecessary risk and where possible, they (or their relatives) were able to make decisions about the care and support provided.

Is the service effective?

We observed staff interacted with people who used the service and saw that staff met people’s needs in a friendly and relaxed manner. Relatives we spoke with told us they were satisfied with the care provided and they would recommend the service to others.

The health and personal care needs of people who used the service had been thoroughly assessed.

We saw that people who used the service had been involved in the care planning process. We also saw evidence that people and their relatives had been involved in reviews of care planning and risk assessments.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with eight people who used the service and four relatives. We asked about the care they or their relative received. Feedback was all positive. People told us staff were kind and caring towards them and relatives we spoke with had nothing but praise for the home and the staff.

Throughout our time at the home we observed staff treated people with dignity and respect. People who used the service were offered choices and care was provided in a relaxed and calm manner.

When we spoke with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported and they were observed speaking with people in a respectful and friendly manner.

We looked at care files for people who used the service and found that information was recorded in a person centred way. Risk assessments were in place and files contained sufficient information for staff to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

We observed that staff responded to people well by anticipating their needs appropriately.

We saw from records that where people's circumstances changed, risk assessments and written plans of care were reviewed and amended if necessary. Where people were at particular risk, professional advice was sought and incorporated into plans of care.

Is the service well-led?

Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were acted upon by the service. People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

We found that service had effective monitoring systems in place so the quality of service provided could be reviewed and if necessary changed.

Relatives told us that they were asked for their opinion on the service at virtually every visit.

Audit systems were in place to check the safety and quality of the service provided. All equipment was regularly serviced and tested.

Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of their roles. They were confident in reporting any concerns and they felt well supported by the manager.