We carried out a review of the data available to us about Broadfield Care Services Limited 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 Broadfield Care Services Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
Broadfield Care Services Limited is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The agency’s office is located in the centre of Oswaldtwistle, close to all local amenities. The agency provides a service to people residing in the Hyndburn area. At the time of the inspection, 70 people were using the service.
The service was managed by a registered manager. 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.
We lasted inspected this service on 30 January 2014 and found it was meeting all legal requirements.
During this inspection, we found there was a breach of one regulation relating to the timely notification of specific events and incidents which had occurred in the service. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. We also made two recommendations about the needs to assess generic risks associated with the operation of the agency and the analysis and evaluation of all information gathered as part of the quality assurance processes.
People using the service said they felt safe and staff treated them well. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work. There were sufficient numbers of staff to maintain the schedule of care visits and there were robust systems in place to ensure visits took place on time. Potential risks to people’s health and well-being were assessed; however, we noted general risks connected to the service had not been carried out. Staff showed awareness of how to keep people safe and understood the policies and procedures used to safeguard people. Staff were also aware of the procedures to follow to ensure medicines were handled safely.
Staff told us they felt supported and received regular supervision and support from the senior supervisors. Staff confirmed they had received appropriate training, however, the training matrix was out of date.
Staff spoken with had an awareness of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and people had signed a consent form to indicate their agreement for care to be provided in line with their care plan.
Where appropriate, people were supported to eat and drink and have access to healthcare services.
Staff were respectful of people’s privacy and maintained their dignity. All people spoken with told us the staff were kind and caring. People were involved in the development and review of their care plans. This meant people were able to influence the delivery of their care and staff had up to date information about people’s needs and wishes. People told us they usually received care from a consistent group of staff.
People, their relatives and staff made positive comments about the way the agency was operated. However, we found the provider had not notified the commission of specific events and incidents occurring in the service in line with the current regulations. We also noted the information gathered during the quality assurance processes was not always analysed and evaluated in order to identify any trends and address any issues raised.
The people we spoke with told us they were very satisfied with the service. They said the service was reliable, with carers being punctual and not letting them down. People also said they had a consistent team of carers who supported them, and changes to their carers were only made when necessary. The following comments were made, "It's an excellent organisation", "Young or old, all very good; the sort of people you want in your home", and "They've been a lifeline". We also found carers assisted people appropriately with their medication and meals. One person said, "They make sure he takes his tablets".
We found the recruitment of new staff helped to ensure suitable people were employed, but the records of the checks made needed to be improved. New staff were properly supported till they felt confident and competent and all staff received on going training and support.
All the people we spoke with said they were satisfied with the service. They all praised their present carers for having the right skills and attitude and for giving good care. People said the service was reliable, with carers being punctual and not letting them down. People also said they knew all the carers who supported them and that changes to their team of carers were only made when necessary. People made the following comments: "I'm very happy with everything, I really am", "I nearly always have the same carer, "The carers all know what to do and how to speak to her (the service user) and this is vital for our package of care" and "The service is absolutely brilliant; I am more than satisfied".
People we spoke with told us their needs and their service were well monitored. One person said, "People from the office come and see how things are going".
People told us they were involved in planning their care and support. They were enabled to make choices and decisions about matters which affected them.
People considered they were treated with dignity and said their privacy was respected. They told us they were encouraged to be as independent as possible.
They told us the care they received was good and that they had care plans which instructed staff on what they needed to when they visited. However, we found some improvements were needed with care plans to promote a more personalised service.
People had no concerns about their care and treatment; they said they felt safe with the staff. They said the staff were, lovely, great, cheerful and helpful.
People said they were consulted about the service and that checks on visits and practices were being carried out. However, we found further improvements were needed with monitoring and developing the quality of service people received.