You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

Bricklehampton Hall is registered to provide accommodation and nursing care for up to 55 older people who may have a physical disability. There were 49 people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

This inspection took place on 14 March 2017 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager (who was also referred to as matron) was in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

People told us they felt safe because of the way staff cared for them. Staff took action to care for people in ways which promoted their safety and people's care plans gave clear guidance for staff to follow in order to promote people’s well-being. Staff we spoke with were aware of how to recognise signs of abuse, and systems were in place to guide them in reporting these. They were knowledgeable about how to manage people’s individual risks, and were able to respond to people’s needs. People told us they were supported in a safe way and had their medicines as prescribed.

There were enough staff employed to care for people. Staff were recruited based upon their suitability to work with people who lived at the home. People benefited from receiving support from staff with the knowledge and skills to care for them. Staff took action to support people if they required medical assistance, and advice provided by health professionals was implemented. As a result, people were supported to maintain their health.

People were assisted in having enough to eat and drink to stay healthy. People were given choice of meals. Where necessary they were given extra help to eat and drink to stay well. People said they had access to health professionals, and there was a twice weekly visit from a local doctor. Relatives had been informed if appropriate and were confident their family member had the support they needed.

Staff knew how to support people when specific decisions needed to be made to meet their needs in their best interests. We saw people were given choices about their care and support. This enabled people to be involved in the decisions about how they would like their care and support delivered. People’s right to privacy was taken into account in the way staff cared for them.

People told us they were happy living at the home, supported by caring staff. People’s independence was promoted. Visitors were welcome to see their family members or friends when they wanted.

People were involved in deciding how their care should be planned and risks to their well-being responded to. Where people were not able to make all of their own decisions their representatives and relatives were consulted. People’s care plans and risk assessments were updated as their needs changed. People and their relatives understood how to raise any concerns or complaints about the service. Systems for managing complaints were in place, so any lessons would be learnt.

Quality audits were undertook by the registered manager and the provider to develop people’s care further. The provider and registered manager took account of people’s views and suggestions to make sure planned improvements focused on people’s experiences.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was safe.

People benefited from living in a home where staff took action to reduce risks. There were enough staff available to care for people. Where people needed assistance with their medicines they were supported by staff.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was effective.

People’s rights were promoted by staff. Staff knew what action to take if people needed support to make some decisions. People were cared for by staff who were continuing to develop the skills and knowledge needed to care for people. People were encouraged to have enough to eat and drink and to see health professionals when this was required.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was caring.

People had caring relationships with staff and were encouraged to decide how they wanted their day to day support to be given. Staff cared for people so their rights to dignity and privacy were promoted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was responsive.

People decided what care they wanted with support from staff who took people’s preferences into account when planning their care. Staff communicated information so people's changing needs were met. People and their relatives were confident if they raised any concerns or complaints the registered manager and provider would take action to address them.

Well-led

Good

Updated 11 April 2017

The service was well led.

People who lived at the home and their relatives were complimentary about the way the service was managed and told us they could approach the registered manager. Checks to monitor the quality of the service provided were regularly undertaken and action taken to develop people’s care further.