You are here

Breckside Park Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 July 2017

This unannounced inspection of Breckside Park took place on 15 & 19 June 2016.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of completing their registration with CQC. 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.

Breckside Park is a care home providing personal care for up to 26 older people. The home is situated in a residential area of Anfield in Liverpool. It is close to local shops and public transport links. Accommodation is provided over three floors and a passenger lift is available for people to access all floors.

The home was last inspected in April 2016. During this inspection we found the service was in breach of regulations relating to the safe care and treatment, staffing and governance. The overall rating for this service was ‘requires improvement’. The provider sent us an action plan detailing how they would meet these breaches and we reviewed the action plan as part of this inspection. We found that the provider had taken action and improved in these areas. The service was no longer in breach of these regulations.

During our last inspection in April 2016, the service was in breach of regulations relating to the safe management of medications and the safety of the environment. This was because there was not adequate procedures in place to manage people’s medication needs during the night. Also, there were fire doors wedged open, and razors left in communal bathrooms which could have caused people harm. We checked to see what improvements had been made. There were now staff trained to be able to support people with medication needs during the night. Medication procedures were well managed, however we did see one person not supported adequately with medication, which was addressed at the time of inspection. We found that the service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

During our last inspection in April 2016, the service was in breach of regulations relating to staffing. This was because there was not enough staff employed by the service to support people with activities or complete other tasks, such as the laundry. We checked what improvements had been made at this inspection. Additional members of staff had been employed since the last inspection, such as an activities coordinator and a laundry assistant. The service was no longer in breach of this regulation.

During our last inspection in April 2016, the service was in breach of regulations relating to the governance of the home. This was because records relating to people’s safety were not always kept accurate and up to date. In addition, we found that quality assurance procedures were not robust and did not identify the shortfalls we found during our inspection. We checked what improvements had been made. We found that all records were accurate and completed, and quality assurances systems had improved and was no longer in breach of this regulation.

We looked and the Mental Capacity Act and associated principles and found some inconsistences. Consent was not documented for people, and at least two people who lacked capacity had signed their own care plan without a best interest process being considered. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt safe living at the home. Staff has all been trained in safeguarding and were able to describe the course of action they would take if they felt someone was being harmed. This included whistleblowing.

Staff were being recruited and selected safely, and only started working at the home once all references and checks had taken place.

We had received information prior to our inspection concerning the fire safety of the building. The provider had been set a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 July 2017

The service was safe.

Medication was managed well, however we saw one example of staff not appropriately administering medication, which was addressed at the time of inspection.

Staffing levels were consistent and people told us there were enough staff to meet their needs safely.

Safety checks took place on the building and the equipment within it.

Staff were recruited safely and only offered positions once thorough checks had been completed.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 18 July 2017

The service was not always effective.

There were some inconsistencies in the application of the MCA. Consent was not documented and best interests processes had not been followed for some people. We have made a recommendation regarding this.

Training was in date, staff confirmed they had attended training courses and certificates were available for us to view in staff files. All staff had received formal supervision and appraisal.

There were some mixed responses regarding the food. People mostly told us they enjoyed the food.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 July 2017

The service was caring.

People spoke positively about the staff and we saw staff treating people with kindness throughout our inspection.

Most people told us they were involved in the planning of their care. Care plans we looked at confirmed people had been consulted with.

Records and confidential documentation were stored securely, in a lockable cupboard.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 July 2017

The service was responsive.

There was some person centred information in people care plans and we saw this was being further implemented and improved across the home.

There was a complaints process in place, and people we spoke with told us they knew how to complain.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 July 2017

The service was well-led

The manager had submitted their registration forms and were in the end of stages of registering with CQC.

Everyone we spoke with said the home had improved in the last few months.

Quality assurance systems had improved, and regular checks were being completed by the manager and the provider.