You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 November 2017

Britannia Care Home is a purpose built facility in Girlington, Bradford close to local amenities. The home provides accommodation for a maximum of 39 people who have mental health needs.

Accommodation is provided across three floors. There is clear access to all floors for wheelchair users with a passenger lift and a ramp for wheelchair access at the front of the home.

The inspection was carried out on 14 September 2017 and was unannounced.

At the time of the inspection there were 38 people living in the home.

A registered manager was in place. 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.

At the last comprehensive inspection in August 2016 we identified one breach of regulation in relation to the safe management of medicines (Regulation 12). During this inspection we found the required improvements had been made.

People told us they liked living at Britannia and felt safe. Staff were aware of how to identify and report any concerns about people’s safety and welfare.

There were enough staff available to ensure people received appropriate support. The required checks were completed before new staff started work and this helped to protect people. Staff were trained and supported to carry out their duties.

The home was clean and maintained in a safe condition. People told us they liked their rooms.

Risks to people’s safety and welfare were identified and managed. Within people’s care records there was some duplication of the information recorded in their care plans and risk assessments. The registered manager had already identified this and was dealing with it.

Incidents and accidents were recorded and investigated and action was taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The records showed physical restraint was only used when it was in people’s best interests and necessary to prevent harm.

We found improvements had been made to the way peoples medicines were managed and people told us they received their medicines at the right times.

.

We found the service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which helped to make sure people’s rights were protected and promoted.

People had access to advocates to help ensure their views were represented.

Everyone told us they enjoyed the food. People were offered an excellent choice of food which reflected their preferences and cultural needs. Appropriate action was taken to support people who were at risk of poor nutrition.

Within the care records we saw evidence people had access to a range of health and social care professionals. The feedback we received from other agencies involved with service was positive. They all told us they felt the registered manager and staff worked well with them for the benefit of people who used the service.

People told us staff were kind and treated them with dignity and respect. This was confirmed by our observations of care and support. People were supported to maintain their independence. Equality and diversity was promoted, for example, people were supported to celebrate a diverse range of religious festivals.

People were supported to take part in a range of activities. The registered manager was eager to recruit a dedicated activities coordinator to improve people’s access to social activities.

There was a system in place to log, investigate and respond to any complaints received. People told us they were confident the registered manager would listen to them and take appropriate action if they had any concerns.

There was an open and inclusive culture within the home. The registered manager provided strong leadership and a good role model for staff. We found t

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 November 2017

The service was safe.

Risks to people's health and safety were identified and managed.

There were enough staff deployed to ensure people received appropriate support.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to help ensure staff were of suitable character to work with vulnerable people.

People�s medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 November 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were trained and supported to carry out their roles.

The service was working in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act which helped to make sure people�s rights were protected.

People's nutritional needs were met. People had access to a wide variety of food and drink and everyone told us they liked the food.

People's healthcare needs were assessed and people had access to a range of health professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 November 2017

The service remains good.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 November 2017

The service remains good.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 November 2017

The service was well led.

The registered manager provided strong leadership and was clearly committed to continuing to improve and develop the service.

Systems were in place to seek people's feedback and use it to make positive changes to the service.

Systems were operated effectively to assess and monitor the safety and quality of the services provided.