Dunraven House and Lodge

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

People were not being supported in a responsive way nor in a way that was in line with current national guidance of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. People were not engaged with to review their care and support needs or to plan steps to maintain or maximise their independence.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People were not being supported in a person-centred way or in a way that met the expectations of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. People had limited opportunities to make real choices within the service or in the wider community to live an ordinary life.

Staff we spoke to understood what person-centred support was and felt they were delivering a person-centred service. However, they did not recognise that the restrictions of the service made delivering person-centred support challenging. The way managers and staff were supporting people was not in line with good person-centred support. People had limited support to access community activities since the COVID-19 pandemic, however the service had recently started to support some people with a holiday and also had taken some people to watch a football match.

We saw the service had not been developed in line with person-centred support in mind. For example people were not being supported in a way which encouraged their opportunities to progress with recovery or to learn new skills or gain independence if they wished to.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People’s experience was mixed, ranging from some people feeling they were not listened to, to other people telling us management did not listen to them, but staff did. Others said they did feel listened to by staff and management. The provider held a regular house meeting; however, people told us they did not go to it as they felt management did not do anything about issues raised. Some people said they would speak to staff they trusted outside the meetings instead.

Staff told inspectors the registered manager and most service managers did not listen to people and often ignored issues raised by people. One member of staff shared about people’s belongings going missing which, when raised with the management was not addressed.

The provider held regular meetings for residents, however when inspectors reviewed the meeting minutes they were not well attended by people. However, the minutes demonstrated a large number of staff attended which could be a barrier to people using the service and could potentially stop them speaking out. The manager had not reviewed the format of the meeting to consider how to improve engagement with people using the service and make the meetings more meaningful with good outcomes for people. The inspector raised this with the registered manager who said they would review how meetings were conducted.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Equity in experiences and outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People were not involved in planning for their future in relation to aspirations and ambitions. However, people had been consulted about end-of-life support.

The registered manager stated that people living at the service were not “able” to develop or re-learn lost skills. They therefore did not engage with people to enable them to plan for a future to maximise their potential. Staff felt their job was about caring for people and did not demonstrate an understanding of the need to empower and support people to develop their ability to make choices or gain independence. People were not enabled to make choices such as what and when they wanted to eat or developing such skills as meal preparation and making hot drinks for themselves.

Electronic systems were in place to enable the provider to support people with planning for outcomes and aspirations, however the registered manager demonstrated during conversations with the inspectors the service had no expectations for people living there to develop skills and talents or to have aspirations. The lack of planning with people for their development demonstrated the registered manager failed to follow systems available to them.