You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 January 2020

About the service:

Burnham Lodge provides accommodation for a maximum of 60 people and also offers day care, where people could choose to visit for a day, a week or several weeks. At the time of the inspection 28 people were using the service which is operated from a large stately home set in vast acreage. Four floors offer bedrooms and facilities, including a hair salon, large communal dining areas, an activities room based in the conservatory and a large day room. Each bedroom has an en-suite with additional toileting and bathing facilities offered per floor.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

The provider had acted to ensure the premises was safe to use for their intended purposes. Risks to people’s health and welfare were assessed and managed appropriately. We found all concerns found at our last inspection in December 2018 had been addressed.

People spoke positively about the caring nature of staff. A relative commented, “(Care is) amazing! Can't ask for anything better. Staff are kind, caring, friendly. They’re always great and address us and [name of family member], very welcoming."

Throughout our visit we observed warm, friendly interactions from staff towards people. People received care and support from staff who knew and understood their care and support needs. People and relatives felt they were able to express their views and staff ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained, and their independence promoted.

People said they generally felt safe. Staff understood the signs of abuse, reporting procedures and had attended the relevant training. A person told us of instances when they did not feel safe. We discussed this with the management team who told us they would look at ways of improving the person’s experience of feeling safe. Recruitment checks ensured people were cared for by staff who were suitable. We found there were enough staff to provide care and support to people. There were safe medicines management and infection control procedures.

The service had participated in a hydration project with the local clinical commissioning group (CCG) which had resulted in improved hydration for people. Staff had the qualifications, competence and skills necessary for the work to be performed by them. Care records documented how people wanted to be cared for but, did not identify all individual needs which related to the protected characteristics identified in the Equality Act 2010. We have made a recommendation about this.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; as the policies and systems in the service did support this practice. We found the service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2015.

People’s care and support needs were assessed to enable staff to meet their specific needs. Care records were detailed and documented people’s preferences for care, such as end of life care. However, this was not always clear when it came to people’s preferences for staff based on their gender. We have made a recommendation about this.

The service did meet the requirements of the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) but management acknowledged they were not familiar with the AIS. Information contained in care records was detailed, documented if people had disabilities or sensory impairments, showed what people’s level of communications were and how staff should support them. People were supported and had the choice to be socially active and they knew what to do if they had any concerns. The provider operated an accessible system for identifying, receiving, handling, and responding to complaints.

People and relatives felt the service was well-led. A relative commented, "Best care anywhere. [Name of family member) didn't want to come to a care home but they (staff) helped them settle. Better than we thought. Quality of life has improved since [name o

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 January 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 January 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 January 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 January 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 January 2020

The service was well-led.

Details are in our responsive findings below.