You are here

Broadfield Care Services Limited Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

We carried out an inspection of Broadfield Care Services Limited on 7 and 8 December 2017. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice to ensure that the registered manager would be available when we visited.

Broadfield Care Services Limited is a domiciliary care service. It provides personal care and support to people living in their own homes. It provides a service to people with a physical disability, sensory impairment, mental ill health, younger adults, older people and people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care and support to 73 people.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager at the service who had been registered with the Commission since October 2010. 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.

At the last inspection on 17 November 2016, we found a breach of our regulations relating to the submission of statutory notifications and asked the provider to make improvements. During this inspection we found that the provider was meeting all regulations. We have made a recommendation about the management of people’s medicines.

We found that the processes in place at the service for ordering people’s medicines, did not reflect current guidance. The registered manager told us they would take action to address this. Staff members’ competence to administer medicines safely was assessed regularly. People told us they received their medicines when they should.

The people we spoke with told us staff arrived on time and stayed for the full duration of the visit. No-one we spoke with had experienced any missed visits.

People told us they received safe care. Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard adults at risk and were aware of the appropriate action to take if abusive practice was taking place.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and had received an appropriate induction. They received regular supervision and their practice was observed to ensure they were providing safe care. Staff told us they felt well supported by the senior care staff and the management team.

People were supported with their nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs and were referred to community healthcare professionals when appropriate.

People were happy with the care and support they received from the service. They told us their care needs were discussed with them and they were involved in decisions about their care.

People liked the staff who supported them and told us they were caring. They told us staff respected their right to privacy and dignity when providing care and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. We found evidence that people’s confidential information was protected.

We found that people were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff understood the main principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). They sought people’s consent before providing support and supported people to make everyday decisions about their care. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, their relatives had been consulted.

People knew who to contact if they had any concerns or if they wanted to make a complaint. We saw evidence that complaints had been investigated and responded to appropriately.

People were asked to give feedback about the service they received during regular reviews and in satisfaction surveys. We reviewed the most recent surveys and found that most people had reported a high level of satisfaction with all aspects of the service.

People we spoke with told us they were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the staff and registered manager approachable and helpful.

We saw evidence that regular audits were completed and found that these checks were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of care and safety were maintained.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was not consistently safe.

There were some safe medicines policies and practices in place. However, staff were not following the current guidance when ordering people’s medicines. Some staff had not updated their medicines management training for some time.

People told us staff visited them on time and stayed for the appropriate amount of time. No-one had experienced any missed visits.

The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff, to ensure that they were appropriate to support adults at risk.

Staff had completed safeguarding training and were aware of the action to take if they suspected abuse was taking place.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing were assessed and reviewed regularly. We saw evidence that people’s risks were being managed appropriately.

Effective

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was effective.

New staff received an appropriate induction and observed experienced staff before they became responsible for providing people’s care.

People’s care needs were assessed before the service began supporting them. This helped to ensure that the service was able to meet their needs.

Staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent and supporting people to make decisions about their care. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions, their relatives had been consulted.

Staff supported people with their nutrition, hydration and healthcare needs and referred people to community healthcare agencies when appropriate.

Caring

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was caring.

People were given information about the service when they started receiving care. This included a service user guide which was available in a variety of formats.

People told us their care needs had been discussed with them and they were involved in decisions about their care.

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and did not rush them when providing care. People told us staff encouraged them to be as independent as possible.

The provider took steps to ensure that people’s right to confidentiality was protected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care which reflected their needs and their preferences. Their needs were reviewed regularly.

People received support from regular staff who were familiar with their needs and preferences.

People felt able to raise concerns with the staff or the registered manager. We found evidence that complaints were investigated and responded to appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 7 February 2018

The service was well-led.

People were asked to give feedback about the care and support they received during reviews and in satisfaction questionnaires. People reported a high level of satisfaction with the service.

People told us they were happy with the way the service was being managed and that staff and the registered manager were approachable.

Staff felt that the service was managed well and felt supported by the management team. They felt fairly treated as employees.

Regular audits of the service were completed and were effective in ensuring that appropriate standards of care and safety were being maintained.