DKM Healthcare Limited

We assessed 5 quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of good practice and concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good.

Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice and concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good. People and those important to them knew how to raise concerns when they didn’t feel safe. Staff understood their duty to protect people from abuse and knew how and when to report any concerns they had to managers. When concerns had been raised, managers reported these promptly to the relevant agencies and worked proactively with them, to make sure timely action was taken to safeguard people from further risk.

Safety risks to people were managed but care plans did not always reflect how to do this clearly. People’s involvement in care planning was not always documented clearly but people told us managers assessed and reviewed safety risks to people and made sure people, and those important to them, were involved in making decisions about how they wished to be supported to stay safe.

There were enough staff to support people with their needs. Managers reviewed staffing levels regularly to make sure there were always enough suitably skilled and experienced staff on duty. Staff received relevant training to meet the range of people’s needs at the service. Staff received support through supervision and appraisal to support their continuous learning and improve their working practice. Managers carried out spot checks and competency assessments on staff to ensure they were able to safely provide people’s care.

We assessed 2 quality statements in the effective key question and found areas of good practice and concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice and concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good.

Peoples needs and rights were supported. People’s care and treatment were assessed but the information was not always clearly reflected in people’s care plans. However, people’s care was effective as staff knew them well and understood their health, care, well-being, and communication needs.

Staff were aware people’s preferences and respected these in a person-centred way. People were aware of their rights around care and treatment. Staff had good knowledge of the mental capacity act, including capacity and consent.

We assessed 1 quality statement in the responsive key question and found areas of good practice. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good.

The assessment of these areas indicated areas of good practice since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good.

People were supported in a way that was respectful and placed them at the centre of their care. People were supported by staff who respected their choices, were responsive to their needs and care met their needs as an individual.

We assessed 3 quality statements in the well-led key question and found areas of good practice and concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good.

Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good.

The governance processes in place were not always effective in identifying quality issues. Staff understood their role and responsibilities and were supported by a compassionate leadership team. Notifications were consistently submitted to external organisations as required. Staff felt able to be open and honest about any concerns but they also had access to a Whistleblowing Policy and use of anonymous feedback forms.