You are here

Barnfold Cottage Residential Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

We carried out an unannounced inspection of Barnfold Cottage Residential Home on 4 and 5 July 2018.

Barnfold Cottage Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 14 people. Nursing care is not provided. Accommodation is provided over two floors. At the time of our inspection there were 11 people living at the home.

The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and we looked at both during this inspection.

At the last inspection on 18 April 2017, we found five breaches of the regulations. These related to medicines not always being safely managed, a lack of effective infection control processes, a lack of quality audits, a lack of compliance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and appropriate action not always being taken to manage people’s risks. Following our inspection, the provider sent us an action plan and told us that all actions would be completed by 20 June 2017.

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations reviewed.

People who lived at the home and their relatives were happy with staffing levels. They told us staff provided them with support when they needed it.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely and the staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse.

People told us the staff who supported them were kind and caring and respected their right to privacy and dignity. They told us staff encouraged them to be as independent as they could be and we saw evidence of this during the inspection.

Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training. People who lived at the service and their relatives felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

People received appropriate support with nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were met. Referrals were made to community healthcare professionals to ensure that people received appropriate support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People told us that they received care that reflected their individual needs and preferences and we saw evidence of this. Staff told us they knew people well and gave examples of people’s routines and how people liked to be supported.

People were supported to take part in activities and events. They told us they were happy with the activities that were available at the home.

Staff communicated effectively with people. They supported people sensitively and did not rush them when providing care. People’s communication needs were identified and appropriate support was provided.

The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people living at the home and their relatives about the support they received. We saw evidence that she used the feedback received to develop and improve the service.

People living at the service and staff were happy with how the service was being managed. They found the registered manager approachable and supportive.

A variety of audits and checks were completed regularly by the registered manager. We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was safe.

The registered manager followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff, to ensure that they were suitable to support people who lived at the home.

There were appropriate policies and practices in place for the safe administration of medicines.

People�s risks were managed appropriately.

People who lived at the service and their relatives were happy with staffing levels. Staff felt that staffing levels were appropriate to meet people�s needs.

There were effective infection prevention and control processes and practices in place at the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was effective.

People�s capacity to make decisions about their care had been assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Applications had been submitted to the local authority where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to keep them safe.

Staff received an appropriate induction, effective training and regular supervision. People felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet their needs.

People were supported appropriately with their healthcare, nutrition and hydration needs. They were referred appropriately to community healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was caring.

People liked the staff who supported them. They told us staff were caring and kind. We observed staff treating people with patience and respect.

People told us staff respected their right to privacy and dignity and we saw examples of this during out inspection.

People told us they were encouraged to be independent. Staff told us they encouraged people to do what they could for themselves, when it was safe for them to do so.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care that reflected their needs and preferences. Staff knew the people they supported well.

People were encouraged and supported to take part in activities at the home. They told us they were happy with the activities available.

People�s needs and risks were reviewed regularly and care records were updated to reflect any changes. This meant that staff had up to date information to enable them to meet people�s needs effectively.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 August 2018

The service was well-led.

The service had a registered manager in post who was responsible for the day to day running of the home. People who lived at the home, their relatives and staff felt the home was managed well.

Regular staff meetings took place and staff felt able to raise any concerns with the registered manager.

The registered manager regularly audited and reviewed many aspects of the service. The audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of care and safety were being maintained at the home.