We carried out a review of the data available to us about Burrell Mead on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Burrell Mead, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice:
All visitors, including health care professionals and essential staff, were screened for symptoms of acute respiratory infection before being allowed to enter the home. They were supported to follow national guidance on wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) and social distancing. The home was clean and hygienic throughout.
At the time of the inspection the home was following the current government guidance in relation to infection prevention and control. Although there were no relatives visiting people at the home, the manager and staff ensured that people could maintain links with family members and friends.
The provider had appropriate arrangements in place to help prevent the spread of COVID 19. They ensured all staff had received training on COVID 19, infection control and the use of PPE. Staff told us they felt safe working at the home. We observed staff wearing appropriate PPE and socially distancing throughout our visit. Staff told us the provider paid for taxies to transfer them to and from the home to minimise the risk of the spread of infection when travelling.
The provider had appropriate arrangements to test people and staff for COVID 19 and was following government guidance on testing. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic COVID 19 risk assessments were carried out with people using the service and staff to ensure they could live and work safely at the home.
The service had business continuity and COVID 19 contingency plans was in place that made provisions for safe care in the event of an emergency, or outbreak of COVID 19. The manager and staff worked closely with health and social care professionals to provide good care outcomes for people using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The home had safeguarding procedures in place and staff had a clear understanding of these procedures. Appropriate recruitment checks had taken place before staff started work and there were enough staff available to meet people’s care and support needs. Risks to people had been assessed to ensure their needs were safely met. The service had procedures in place to reduce the risk of infections. People’s medicines were managed safely.
People’s care and support needs were assessed when they moved into the home. Staff were supported through induction, training, regular supervision and annual appraisals of their work performance. 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. People were supported to maintain a healthy balanced diet and they had access to health care professionals when they needed them.
People and their relatives [where appropriate] had been consulted about their care and support needs. People were supported to take part in activities that met their needs. The home had a complaints procedure in place and people were confident their complaints would be listened to and acted on. People had access to end of life care and support when it was required.
The registered manager and staff worked in partnership with health and social care providers to plan and deliver an effective service. The provider took people and their relatives views into account through satisfaction surveys and meetings. There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Staff enjoyed working at the home and said they received good support from the registered manager and deputy manager.
Rating at last inspection. The last rating for this service was Good (published 20 June 2017).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At our inspection of this service on 5 and 7 May 2015 the service was rated Good. However a breach of a legal requirement was found. This was because although people's care and support needs were assessed there were no guidelines in place for staff on how they should support people to meet these needs. At our focused inspection on the 15 June 2016 we found that the provider had complied with this legal requirement.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good. The home demonstrated they continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.
People told us they felt safe living at the home. Training records confirmed that all staff had received training on safeguarding people from abuse. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. We observed a good staff presence at the home and staff were attentive to people’s needs. Action was taken to assess any risks to people using the service. Risk assessments included information for staff about action to be taken to minimise the chance of accidents occurring. Medicines were managed appropriately and people were receiving their medicines as prescribed by health care professionals.
Staff had the knowledge and skills required to meet people needs. The registered manager and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and acted according to this legislation. People using the service told us they enjoyed the meals provided to them and could choose what they wanted to eat. People were supported to maintain good health.
People had been consulted about their care and support needs. The home had a well-established staff team. Most of the staff team had worked at the home for a long time and knew people very well. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
People told us there were plenty of activities to partake in if they wished to do so. People’s care and support needs were assessed before they moved into the home. Care plans and risk assessments included detailed information for staff about how people’s needs should be met. The home had a complaints procedure in place and people said they were confident their complaints would be listened to and acted on.
The home had a registered manager in post. They had managed the service for nearly two years and they were knowledgeable about the requirements of their role. The provider recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service. The provider sought the views of people using the service, their relatives and friends through residents and relatives meetings and satisfaction surveys.
We undertook this focused inspection on the 15 June 2016 to check that the provider had complied with this legal requirement. This report only covers our findings in relation to the follow up on the breach in respect of person-centred care, Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities Regulations 2014).
We found that the provider had addressed the breach of Regulation 9 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities Regulations 2014).
This inspection took place on 5 and 7 May 2015 and was unannounced. At our previous inspection 02 April 2013, we found the provider was meeting the regulations in relation to outcomes we inspected.
Burrell Mead is a care home that provides accommodation for up to 22 older people. At the time of this inspection the home was providing care and support to 21 people. The home had 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.
During our inspection we a found breach of a Regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in respect of person-centred care. We found that people’s care and support needs had been assessed however there were no appropriate guidelines in place for staff on how they should support people to meet these needs.
People using the service told us that they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Safeguarding adult’s procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. The manager demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.
People and their relatives, where appropriate, had been involved in planning for their care needs. Medicines were managed safely. People were supported to maintain good health and had access to health care support. They had hospital passports that contained information about them for transferring to hospital. They received appropriate end of life care and support. When necessary additional support was provided to the home by a local hospice end of life care team. People were being supported to have a balanced diet.
The home had a well-established staff team. People said the home was well managed and staff worked as a team. They said their privacy and dignity was respected. They knew about the home’s complaints procedure and said they were confident their complaints would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary. There was a range of appropriate activities available to people using the service to enjoy.
People were provided with information about the home and they were aware of the services and facilities available to them. There were regular residents and relatives meetings where people could to talk to the manager about the home and things that were important to them. The provider took into account the views of people using the service and their relatives through meetings and surveys. The results were analysed and action was taken to make improvements for people at the home. Managers regularly attended provider forums run by the local authority. They had gained some useful learning from these events and put these into practice at the home.
Staff said they enjoyed working at the home. They received plenty of training and good support from the manager. There was an out of hours on call system in operation that ensured that management support and advice was always available when they needed it. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to.
We found that the staff received support and training in different aspects of care and demonstrated an understanding of safeguarding of vulnerable adults. Care records were stored securely and were mostly accurate.
However, on our visit we found gaps in staff training and their understanding of safeguarding of vulnerable adults, incomplete documentation of care plans and lack of regular supervision and support provided to staff.