• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Braeburn Care Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Calverley House Business & Conference Centre, 55 Calverley Road, Tonbridge Wells, Kent, TN1 2TU (01892) 704153

Provided and run by:
Braeburn Care Limited

All Inspections

14 February 2017

During a routine inspection

We inspected Braeburn Care on the 14 February 2017. The inspection was announced so that we could ensure people and records we would need to see were available. Braeburn Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care for people who require support in their own home. The organisation is registered to provide care to people with a learning disability or autism spectrum disorder, dementia, older people and younger adults. At the time of our inspection Braeburn Care were providing care to 120 people who had a range of needs from old age, dementia and mental health. The service employed over 40 staff members.

There was 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.

People who received personal care and support from Braeburn Care told us they were happy with the service provided. One person told us, “The care workers are lovely, like my own daughters. I look forward to them coming and would not like to change a thing.” Another person told us, “They are very good on the caring side, I feel happy with them.”

People were supported with medicine management when needed and care workers had received training on how to administer medicines. However, we found unexplained gaps in Medication Administration Records (MAR) and people’s medicine risk assessment did not always record the level of support required to safely manage their medicine regime.

Risk assessments were in place which considered moving and handling, however, risks associated with diabetes, falls and skin integrity had not consistently been explored or mitigated. We have made a recommendation for improvement.

Training schedules confirmed care workers had received training on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Care workers told us how they gained consent from people before delivering care. Consent forms were in place for people to sign to indicate their consent to the package of care and care plan. However, where relatives were signing consent forms, the provider was unable to demonstrate that they had appropriate authority to do so. We have made a recommendation for improvement.

People had individual care plans in place and care workers spoke highly of these. Information was available on the person’s personal history and hobbies and interests. However, on-going work was required to ensure the principles of person-centred care planning were embedded into practice. We have made a recommendation for improvement.

A robust quality assurance framework was not consistently in place. Systems to monitor if care workers were staying the allocated times at care calls was not effective. Where care workers were not staying the allocated time, documentation failed to record the reason why. For example, although a care call was funded for 30 minutes, documentation reflected the care workers only stayed 20 minutes. People and their relatives raised no concerns over the timings of care calls and care workers not staying the allocated time. However, we have made a recommendation about a robust quality assurance framework which governs the running of the care agency.

People receiving support felt safe and well cared for. They were protected from harm because care workers understood the risks they faced and how to reduce these risks. They also knew how to identify and respond to abuse. Care workers were vigilant of people’s health care needs and ensured they had access to health care professionals to maintain their health. Care workers understood the need to share information about changes in people's health.

There were enough safely recruited care workers to ensure the care could be provided. Care workers told us told us they felt supported in their roles and had received training that provided them with the necessary knowledge and skills to do their job effectively.

People were supported by care workers who were passionate about their work. Care workers told us they liked working for the organisation and appreciated that the organisation put people first.

People and relatives told us they felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager. They felt these would be listened to and responded to effectively and in a timely way. Care workers told us the registered manager and senior staff were approachable and responsive to their ideas and suggestions.

Care workers were described as being caring and kind. Care workers respected people's decisions to make their own choices and supported people to maintain and develop their independence. One person told us, “Care workers enjoy what they do and go the extra mile and are cheerful, friendly and competent.”

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.