The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Bradbury House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

14 Fairway, Bristol, Avon, BS4 5DF (0117) 971 6716

Provided and run by:
Mr Neil Bradbury

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

17 October 2015

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection on 17 October 2015 and this was an announced inspection. The registered manager was given short notice of the inspection because we needed to be sure senior staff would be available to assist with the inspection process. When Bradbury House was last inspected in April 2014 there were no breaches of the legal requirements identified.

Bradbury House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 15 people. 11 people are accommodated in the main house and there is a smaller property with places for four people. The service provides support to people with learning disabilities and to people who have a diagnosis which falls within the autism spectrum. At the time of our inspection there were 10 people using the service.

A registered manager was 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were safe and relatives felt people using the service were safe. Staff understood how to identify and report actual or suspected abuse and were aware of external agencies they could contact. Safe recruitment processes were completed and staffing levels met people’s assessed needs.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and appropriate guidance was produced to ensure people could be as independent as possible. The provider had systems to monitor the environment and incidents and accidents were reviewed to establish patterns or trends. People received their medicines on time and medicines were stored correctly. Medicines records had been completed accurately.

People received effective care from staff at the service. There were reviews of people’s health and people could see healthcare professionals when required. The registered manager spoke of a good relationship with people’s GP and explained how this helped provide co-ordinated care. People were supported to eat and drink and prescribed nutritional supplements were received by people where required.

Staff understood their obligations under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and training had been provided. The registered manager was aware of their legal responsibilities in regard to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and some DoLS applications had been made. Staff received appropriate training and were supported through a regular supervision process. An induction period was undertaken by new staff when they commenced employment.

Staff cared for people well and there were positive interactions observed during the inspection. People had the opportunity to be independent and their privacy was respected by staff. Staff understood people’s needs well and people’s relatives spoke positively of the staff at the service.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and people made choices about their daily lives. People discussed the level of support they required from staff and where possible, some people were actively involved in helping around the service.

People took part in a variety of activities in the home and in the community on a regular basis. Care plan reviews were completed and the registered manager had introduced an innovative way to involve people in their care reviews. The provider had a complaints procedure available.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager and there were ways to communicate key messages to staff. An auditing system to monitor the service provision and safety was in operation. The provider had plans to undertake renovation work for the benefit of the people at the service.

29 April 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During our inspections we set out to answer a number of key questions about a service: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

During this inspection we looked at the arrangements being made for cleanliness and infection control in the home. This helped us to answer the question 'Is the service safe?'

At the previous inspection of Bradbury House on 16 February 2014 we had found that not all parts of the main house were in a clean and hygienic condition. There was a risk of cross-infection because good standards in relation to cleanliness were not being maintained. The service had not been complying with the regulation in relation to cleanliness and infection control. We told the provider and the manager that they must take action to ensure that improvements were made.

We visited Bradbury House again on 29 April 2014 in order to check on the action that had been taken. Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe:

We found that improvements had been made and we judged that the service was complying with the regulation. People who used the service were now better protected from the risk of cross-infection. Arrangements were being made which helped to ensure that good standards in relation to cleaning and hygiene were being maintained.

16 February 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our inspection on 4 September 2013 we found people had not been protected from environmental infection control risks in the home. This was because the environment was not always being maintained in a clean and hygienic condition. The provider wrote to us and informed us they were compliant with the standard by 15 November 2013.

At this inspection we found that people were still not protected from environmental infection control risks in the home. We saw that some action had been taken since the last inspection to address the shortcomings Liquid soap dispensers and hand drying towels were in place at hand wash basins. However facilities in the kitchen were not kept in working order to ensure food was prepared and cooked hygienically. We also found that the environment was not clean and hygienic in parts of the home.

We found that the procedures that were in place to ensure the home was kept clean and hygienic were not consistently being followed. We also found that there was a lack of staff training about infection control. This meant there was no assurance that staff were competent to effectively manage the risk of cross infection in the home.

We saw staff engaged with people in a warm and attentive way. A number of people were not able to directly make their views known. However we saw staff communicated with people using positive body language and gentle humour.

5 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We met with a number of people who used the service although not everybody was able to tell us their views. One person told us that they liked living at the home and enjoyed going out with staff. Trips out were arranged on the day we visited and we saw that these were popular with people.

The people we met with had a range of support needs. Care and support plans had been written and people's needs were being kept under review. The plans included information about people's dietary needs and staff were aware of people's individual preferences. People told us that they enjoyed the meals.

People had their own bedrooms which had been personalised to varying degrees. There were facilities in the smaller property which gave people the opportunity to be more independent in their daily routines. We were told about plans to refurbish parts of the main house which would enhance the facilities for people. We saw that the immediate priority was to improve the standard of cleanliness and hygiene in some areas.

4 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We visited the home and looked at standards in relation to medication and staffing. People received support from staff with their medication. One person who used the service told us that they liked staff to be involved; they thought this was safer and they were reminded of when their medication needed to be taken. Overall we found that suitable arrangements were being made for managing people's medication.

There was a minimum staffing level, with more support staff deployed at busy periods and to provide people with some 'one to one' time. Staff were supporting people with a range of activities on the day we visited. One person, for example had been swimming and another person had gone shopping. We observed friendly and positive interactions between staff and the people who used the service. A relative who was visiting commented that they had 'a good rapport' with staff.

27 April 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People living at Bradbury House had a high level of needs and not everybody at the home could express their views verbally.

We had visited the home in September 2011 and found that improvements were needed in a number of areas. There were concerns about how people's care was being planned and the level of support that was available for individual activities. People were not always supported in a way which respected their dignity and their diverse needs.

The provider produced a plan which set out the action they would take in response to our findings. We visited the home again and saw that changes were being made. People's views were being sought to help ensure that care was planned in a way which met their individual needs. Staffing levels had improved, which meant there were more opportunities for people to have one to one support with their activities. Overall the changes were resulting in a more person centred approach to supporting people.

7 February and 21 September 2011

During a routine inspection

Two people agreed to give feedback about living at the home. They both told us that they liked living at the home, they liked the food and staff knocked on their bedroom doors before entering. They were able to name the member of staff that they would approach with questions and problems. They said that they felt safe at the home and liked the staff that provided their care. These individuals were not aware that they had a care plan.

A relative was at the home during our visit and agreed to give feedback about their experiences of the provision of care. They told us that they had good relationships with the staff, they were informed about important events and they attended twice yearly reviews. The relative said that they felt confident to approach the manager with complaints if they arose.

During our observations of staff's interaction with people at the home we saw that they knew the individuals likes and dislikes and they had a friendly approach. We saw them use a firm approach to diffuse potentially aggressive situations when people used their behaviour to express the way they were feeling. However, we saw examples of institutional practices, for example there was a lack of person centred care, people were cared for in groups and a large proportion of the home was kept locked.

We also saw that the actions of the staff did not respect people's culture and diversity or their privacy and dignity. For example, people at the home were not served cultural meals required by their belief/religion and some staff did not undertake personal tasks in private.