You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Broxbourne House. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

This inspection took place on 27 February 2017. The home was previously inspected in October 2015. At the last inspection we found a breaches of Regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider sent us an action plan telling us about the action they would complete reach compliance. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the registered manager and provider had worked hard to ensure compliance with the regulations.

Broxbourne House is a care home providing accommodation for 21 older people, some of which were living with dementia. It is situated in Wakefield.

The service had a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service, who we spoke with, told us they were happy with how care and support was provided at the home. They spoke positively about the staff and the way the home was managed.

We saw there were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about safeguarding people and were able to explain the procedures to follow should an allegation of abuse be made. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place to ensure people’s safety.

At the time of the inspection there was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Relatives we spoke with confirmed when they visited there were sufficient staff on duty. There was a recruitment system in place that helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. Staff had received a structured induction into how the home operated, and their job role, at the beginning of their employment. They had access to a varied training programme that met the needs of the people using the service.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications safely, which included key staff receiving medication training and regular audits of the system.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People had access to activities and stimulation and this was promoted to ensure people achieved a good sense of well-being.

We found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The staff we spoke with had a satisfactory understanding and knowledge of this, and people who used the service had been assessed to determine if a DoLS application was required. However, best interest decision processes were being improved at the time of our inspection.

People’s individualised diets were being met. We received positive comments from people we spoke with about the quality of the food.

People were treated with respect .People and their relatives told us staff were kind and very caring. Staff demonstrated a good awareness of how they respected people’s preferences and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained. We saw staff took account of people’s individual needs and preferences while supporting them.

There was a system in place to tell people how to make a complaint and how it would be managed. We saw the complaints policy was easily available to people using and visiting the service. The service actively sought the views of people living at the service to continuously improve the service.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. The systems identified any areas for improvement and these were actioned by the registered manager and the provider.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise signs of potential abuse and aware of the reporting procedures. Assessments identified risks to people and management plans to reduce the risks were in place.

We found recruitment processes were thorough so helped the employer make safer recruitment decisions when employing new staff. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Systems were in place to make sure people received their medications safely and systems were being improved at the time of our inspection.

Effective

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was effective.

Staff had completed training in the Mental Capacity Act and understood how to support people whilst considering their best interest and tis was being improved further by the registered manager.

A structured induction programme and a varied training programme was available which enabled staff meet the needs of the people they supported.

People received a well-balanced diet that offered variety and choice.

Caring

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with respect and kindness. Staff demonstrated an awareness of how they respected people’s preferences and ensured their privacy and dignity was maintained.

People made positive comments about the staff and told us they were treated with dignity and respect.

Responsive

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised support that was tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

People were provided with opportunities to take part in things they enjoyed doing. People felt comfortable to raise any concerns with staff or management and were confident that they would be dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 24 March 2017

The service was well led

There were processes in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.

There were system in place to ensure policies and procedures were reviewed so they reflected key legislation and guidance.

The service actively sought the views of people living at the service.