We carried out a review of the data available to us about New Bradley Hall 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 New Bradley Hall, you can give feedback on this service.
People were safe, and staff knew what to do to minimise risks to people as far as this was possible without infringing their rights.
People were supported by care staff that were caring and expressed interest in people and the support they provided them. People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop good relationships with the people.
People were supported by care staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. There was some need for training refreshers, but this had been identified and training updates were on going. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers when needed to support people’s healthcare needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected by staff.
People enjoyed meals that reflected their preferences and there was access to a range of foods that met people’s needs due to their health, or specific preferences.
We saw the service was responsive to information from people and relatives. People could complain, and concerns were listened and responded to by the staff. Complaints and comments were used as a tool to drive improvement of the service.
People, relatives and staff were able to share their views with management. People enjoyed living at New Bradley Hall and were able to follow their chosen routines and enjoyed access to activities at the service or in the community.
Quality monitoring systems included audits and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received. The provider had systems in place to ensure they kept up to date with developments in the sector and changes in the law.
The registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to people and acted on feedback shared with them. The registered manager demonstrated they were not complacent and wished to improve the service further, for example developing care records further so they would be more person centred and accurate.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was ‘good’ (report published 24 March 2017)
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Our inspection was unannounced and took place on the 13 February 2017. At our last inspection in September 2016 the provider was meeting all the regulations but we identified that some areas in the key questions of safe and well-led required improvement. We found on this our most recent inspection, the provider had made the necessary improvements.
The manager in post at the time of our inspection was in the process of registering with us. 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 using the service were supported safely and protected by staff. Staff understood the different forms of abuse people may be exposed to, how to protect them and report any concerns. Risks to people’s health and well-being were understood and effectively managed by staff. Information about action taken or changes to practice following an incident was shared with staff in daily handovers or meetings. Staffing levels were regularly assessed and monitored to make sure they were flexible and sufficient to meet people’s individual needs and to keep them safe. Recruitment practices in place ensured that staff recruited had the right skills, experience and qualities to support the people who used the service. Robust checks in relation to how medicines were managed at the service were carried out by senior staff, management and external auditors.
Staff were well supported with training that developed their abilities and skills. The provider’s induction provided staff with the training and information required in order for them to commence work with people with the knowledge required. Staff were more than happy with the level of supervision and support available to them, both formally and as and when they needed it. People’s human rights were respected by staff who worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People had access to support from a range of health care professionals in order to maintain their health and wellbeing. People were assisted to take sufficient food and drinks with encouragement from staff where required.
People were given the necessary verbal or written information they needed. People were relaxed and were supported to make choices about the care they received in all aspects of daily living. People received the reassurance and encouragement they needed from staff that were kind and sensitive to their needs. Relatives and visitors were made very welcome and were able to visit people freely and without restriction. Information was made available to people about how to access support from local advocacy services, should they need independent advice or support. People received care that respected their need for privacy and maintained their dignity. Staff supported people to do as much as they could for themselves to maintain their independence.
An assessment was undertaken prior to people moving in to the home to ensure that their needs could be met effectively by the service. People were supported to follow their interests, access the local community and take part in social activities. People were supported appropriately to address their religious needs. People were actively encouraged to maintain and have regular contact with their family and friends. People were listened to and felt comfortable raising any concerns or complaints they had. The provider used complaints as an opportunity for learning.
People were positive about their experiences of living at New Bradley Hall. The provider sent out their annual survey and we saw that the comments were overwhelmingly positive. People spoke positively about the visibility and approachability of the manager. The manager understood their responsibilities for reporting certain incidents and events to us and to other external agencies that had occurred at the home or affected people who used the service. The provider involved the local community in its future plans for the service. The provider had acted appropriately to address areas identified to them as requiring improvement in relation to their quality assurance processes.
This unannounced inspection took place on 16 September 2016.
The service had no registered manager at the time of our inspection. The Head of Service was overseeing the day to day running of the service as interim manager. Interviews had taken place for a registered manager and we were informed that a job offer had been made to the successful candidate. 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.
Medicines within the service required more comprehensive checks to be completed and guidance for staff in their administration to be implemented. Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm; they knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to raise an alert if they had any concerns. Risks to people were assessed and guidance was available for staff to follow to ensure they were protected from harm. Records in relation to incidents that occurred did not always clearly demonstrate the outcome or outline any learning or changes to practice as a result. Staffing levels were adequate; however people’s increasing levels of dependency were due to be given further consideration to ensure their changing needs could be met effectively. The recruitment process was robust and the provider was as sure as possible, that staff employed were suitable and safe to work with people.
Staff supervision was regularly provided and staff had access to the support they needed when they needed it. People’s consent was sought by staff before supporting them and consideration was given to their mental capacity to make informed choices. Training on offer from the provider was complimented by staff in terms of variety and availability. People enjoyed their meals and were supported by staff to eat and drink enough to keep them healthy. Staff accessed input from health care professionals for people when they needed it.
Staff were caring and kind towards people, displaying friendliness and warmth when interacting with them. People were happy with the way staff communicated with them and the information they were provided with. Staff were respectful towards people and maintained their privacy and dignity whilst supporting them. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible by staff. Information for people in relation to local advocacy services needed to be sourced.
People were actively encouraged to participate in activities that were of interest to them with support from staff. People were clear about how to make their views known and information was available about how to make a complaint. People and/or their representatives were involved in planning and reviewing their support needs.
The service had no registered manager at the time of our inspection, but people were positive about the leadership of the service and expressed their confidence in the interim manager’s abilities. The provider’s quality assurance systems were not always effective in identifying issues, including not consistently notifying us of events that occurred within the service. People’s feedback in relation to the quality of the service was sought through a variety of meetings and surveys. The providers had developed strong links with the local community; they were open and inclusive about their future plans for the service.