• Care Home
  • Care home

Dover House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

57 Coombe Valley Road, Dover, Kent, CT17 0EX (01304) 898989

Provided and run by:
Dover House (GC) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 2 October 2024 to 17 October 2024. We completed this assessment due to concerns being raised about the quality of care people were receiving. However, we found the service had improved since our last inspection. People were being supported to manage risks to their health and welfare. Lessons were being learnt when things went wrong, to keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed and had been referred to healthcare professionals, when their needs changed. Staff had been recruited safely and they had received training appropriate to their role. There was an open and transparent culture within the service. Staff felt supported to raise concerns and speak up. People were protected from abuse and discrimination, staff worked with professionals to keep people safe. People were treated with kindness and compassion, staff respected their privacy and maintained their dignity. The management team had improved oversight of the service and there were effective systems to monitor the quality of the service.

6 December 2022

During a routine inspection

About the service

Willow Park Lodge is a care home providing accommodation with nursing and personal care for up to 79 people. The service provides care and support for people with a range of needs, including people living with dementia. The service also provides short term care for people who need assessments of on-going care needs. Willow Park Lodge is arranged across 4 levels, the top floor is currently not being used. The ground floor mainly accommodates people requiring residential care, the first floor provides care for people living with dementia and the second floor is used for short term assessments. At the time of our inspection there were 52 people using the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There was a registered manager in place, supported by a team of other managers but the structure was not always clear for people and visitors. There were quality monitoring processes in place but actions to address shortfalls were not always clearly documented.

Some care plans did not always contain enough detail to provide staff with the guidance needed to provide consistent care; and recording of information, such as hourly checks or fluid intake, was inconsistent. Not all risk assessments had been updated when a person’s circumstances changed.

People, relatives and staff told us the registered manager was approachable, accessible and supportive, and they were confident to raise concerns if necessary.

People and their relatives told us they felt safe and happy living in the service. One relative said, “Yes they are safe, they are content and relaxed.” Another relative said, “Yes, [relative] is safe. They had a few falls but walking much better now.”

Risk to people had been assessed using recognised tools and documented, for example, risks of falls or skin damage. Information was available for staff to manage these risks, and staff knew people well. Environmental risks, for example, fire safety and water temperatures were managed. A relative told us, “Staff went out of their way to improve [relative’s] situation.”

There were enough staff deployed to provide safe care and staff had been trained to do their role. Medicines were managed safely and there were measures in place to prevent the spread of infection. The service was clean and uncluttered. People said it was a very clean and well-maintained home. A relative said, “It’s been taken over and refurbished, it’s like a hotel; clean and functional.”

Most people enjoyed the food and their dietary needs and preferences were met, for example meat-free meals. People told us they had choices, but if they wanted something different, they only had to ask. One relative said, “I can’t fault the food, it’s all very good. The chef will always make something else if needed.”

People were involved in decisions about their care and they received care which promoted their dignity and encouraged independence. Relatives told us they were involved in their relative’s care plans where appropriate and were always kept up to date with any changes. The service sought feedback from people and relatives through meetings and surveys.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The service was registered with us on 5 July 2022 and this was the first inspection. The last rating for the service under the previous provider was requires improvement, published on 24 November 2021.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about people’s safety, standards of person-centred care, cleanliness and medicines management. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks. We found evidence that the provider needs to make improvements. Please see the safe and well led section of this full report.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.