Bracebridge Court

Updated 13 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 10 August 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector and an expert-by-experience. An expert-by-experience is someone who has personal experience of using, or caring for someone who has used this type of service

We reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from the statutory notifications the provider had sent to us and commissioners of the service. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority.

Before the inspection visits, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We found the PIR reflected the service provided.

We spoke with four people who lived at the home and three people’s relatives. We spent time observing how people were cared for and how staff interacted with them so we could get a view of the care they received. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We spoke with the registered manager, the regional operations director, a cook, a senior care worker/team leader, a member of care staff and a member of housekeeping staff. Following our inspection visit we gathered feedback from the maintenance manager, the deputy manager and the activities co-ordinator.

We checked whether staff had been recruited safely, were trained to deliver the care and support people required and that staff received appropriate support to continue their professional development.

We looked at a range of records about people’s care including four care files. We also looked at other records relating to people’s care such as medicine records, and the support they received. This was to assess whether the care people needed was being provided. We reviewed records of the checks the registered manager and the provider made to assure themselves people received a quality service.

Updated 13 September 2018

We inspected Bracebridge Court on 10 August 2018. The inspection visit was unannounced.

Bracebridge Court provides accommodation for 66 people in a residential setting over two floors. There were 62 people living at the home when we inspected the service. Bracebridge Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was an experienced registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. We found that the service needed to make some improvements in its governance procedures, and rated Well-led as ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the provider had made all the improvements necessary, and we have rated the service as ‘Good’ in all areas.

People felt safe using the service and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and keep people safe. There were procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Checks were carried out on staff during the recruitment process to make sure they were suitable to work with people at the home.

There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular checks on their competency. Yearly appraisal meetings were conducted in which their performance and development was discussed.

The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe. Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, their daily routines and preferences.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was being restricted in accordance with DoLS and the MCA.

Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored. We found people were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified.

People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People were supported to make decisions about their environment and choose how their bedroom was decorated.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints were responded to in a timely way to people’s satisfaction. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. In addition, people who used the service and their relatives were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run.

People described the home as being well managed and well maintained. Quality assurance procedures were in place to identify where the service needed to make improvements. Where improvements were identified these were acted upon.

The provider worked closely in partnership with a range of external organisations that were leaders in their field, to continuously improve the standard of care offered by staff at Bracebridge Court.