We carried out a review of the data available to us about Berwood Court Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Berwood Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Berwood Court Care Home is a care home providing personal and nursing care to 49 people, some living with dementia at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 74 people.
Berwood Court Care Home is a purpose built, specially adapted home across four units over two floors.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were protected from abuse and relatives we spoke with were assured the home environment was safe for their family members to live in. Staff knew how to report any suspicions of abuse. Risks to people were reviewed every month and supported to remain as safe as possible.
On the day of inspection, there were enough staff employed to meet people's needs and there were recruitment procedures in place to check staff were safe to work with people.
People were supported to take their medicines in a safe manner. There were no issues with the recording and storage of medicines.
We were assured the provider had safe infection prevention and control procedures in place, including in relation to the management of COVID-19. The home environment was very clean, tidy and no clutter.
Incidents and accidents had been reported appropriately and reviewed for any trends to mitigate future risk.
Since the last inspection there have been some changes to the management of the service and restructuring of its processes. We found effective systems were in place to monitor the quality within the home. The feedback we received from families was positive. They were happy with the care given to their relative, the cleanliness of the service, staffing levels and staff attitude. Although they felt the communication from the service could be more efficient.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 18 December 2019) and there were multiple breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating. We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other key questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good. This is based on the findings at this inspection.
Enforcement
Since the last inspection we recognised the provider had failed to notify CQC of all incidents they were required to do so by law and this was a breach of regulations. We issued a fixed penalty notice. The provider accepted the fixed penalty and paid this in full.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Berwood Court Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ On arrival at the home, visitors were screened for symptoms of Covid-19 to ensure their visit could take place safely and in line with current guidance.
¿ People were supported to maintain contact with others who were important to them in a variety of ways including video and telephone calls.
¿ Links with a local nursery school had been maintained during the pandemic. Children from a local nursery school had sung Christmas carols to people from the car park of the home. Staff had opened the windows so people could see and hear the children sing.
¿ Staff used creative ways to ensure the communication between them and the people they cared for was effective. For example, staff wrote things down for one person who had a hearing impairment so they could understand what they were saying to them.
¿ Cleaning schedules had been increased and staff hand washing checks took place to support staff to wash their hands effectively and work in-line with the provider’s infection control policy.
¿ Staff did not wear their uniforms outside of the home which minimised the risk of transmission of Covid-19. Arrangements were in place for staff uniforms to be laundered at the home.
¿ An extra staff room had been created at the home. Staff breaks were staggered which meant staff could appropriately socially distance during their breaks.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were not consistently safeguarded from abuse. We found the provider had not notified CQC of all safeguarding allegations. This meant that CQC did not have oversight of all safeguarding allegations to make sure that appropriate action had been taken. We also found the provider had not taken action to protect people from harm.
People were supported by staff that were caring, compassionate and treated with dignity and respect. Any concerns or worries were listened and responded to and used as opportunities to improve.
People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were aware of people's life histories and individual preferences. They used this information to develop positive, meaningful relationships with people.
People told us they felt well cared for by staff who treated them with respect and dignity and encouraged them to maintain relationships and keep their independence for as long as possible.
People were supported by staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. Staff understood and felt confident in their role. People told us the atmosphere at the home was relaxed and homely.
Staff liaised with other health care professionals to ensure people's safety and meet their health needs.
Where people lacked capacity, staff worked with the local authority to make sure they minimised any restrictions on people's freedom for their safety and wellbeing.
Staff spoke positively about working for the provider. They felt well supported and that they could talk to management at any time, feeling confident any concerns would be acted on promptly. They felt valued and happy in their role.
Audits were completed by staff and the registered manager to check the quality and safety of the service.
The registered manager worked well to lead the staff team in their roles and ensure people received a good service.
More information is in Detailed Findings below.
Rating at last inspection: Good. (Report Published 11 July 2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating of Good at the last inspection. The service rating remained as an overall rating of Good.
Enforcement:
Please see the end of the report for any enforcement action.
Follow up: We are currently deciding what action to take and we will report on any action once it is complete.
Berwood Court is a registered care home providing residential and nursing care for up to seventy four older people, including people who have dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 73 people living at the home.
There was a registered manager in post. 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 secure. Relatives believed their family members were kept safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately. Staff understood the different types of abuse and knew what action they would take if they thought a person was at risk of harm. The provider had processes and systems in place that kept people safe and protected them from the risk of harm.
Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so that they were able to support people with their individual needs.
People safely received their medicines as prescribed to them.
Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. Staff understood when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) should be followed.
People had a variety of food, drinks and snacks available throughout the day. They were able to choose the meals that they preferred to eat and meal times were flexible to meet people’s needs.
People were supported to stay healthy and had access to health care professionals as required. They were treated with kindness and compassion and there was positive communication and interaction between staff and the people living at the location. Staff were aware of the signs that would indicate a person was unhappy and knew what action to take to support people effectively.
People’s right to privacy were upheld by staff that treated them with dignity and respect. People’s choices and independence was respected and promoted and staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs.
People received care from staff that knew them well and benefitted from opportunities to take part in activities that they enjoyed.
The provider had management systems in place to audit, assess and monitor the quality of the service provided, to ensure that people were benefitting from a service that was continually developing.
This was an unannounced inspection, which took place 14 and 15 October 2014. We last inspected this service on 18 October 2013 there were no breaches of legal requirements at that inspection.
Berwood Court Care Home is in the Castle Vale area of Birmingham. The home provides nursing and residential care for 74 older people, including people who have dementia.
There was 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.
Everyone that lived at the home and their relatives spoken with told us they were safe and secure living there. With the exception of one new member of staff, all staff spoken with knew how to keep people safe from abuse and harm. Where incidents had occurred the provider took action to help in reducing risks. However, a number of people used bedrails to support their care and there was a potential risk of them becoming entrapped.
People received their medication as prescribed and were able to manage their medication independently, with support from staff. Medication storage in one area of the home was not stored as safely as it could be, but the provider confirmed that they would address this.
People, relatives and staff spoken with said there were sufficient numbers of staff available to meet the needs of people. Staff spoken with and records confirmed that staff were suitably recruited and received the necessary training and support to help them to care for people safely.
The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including when balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care. The MCA Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) requires providers to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’ for authority to deprive someone of their liberty. Staff spoken with had an understanding of the MCA and DoLS and had received training, so they knew how to protect people’s rights in line with the legislation.
People spoken with were complimentary about the food, all said they had a choice of food and drinks and received the support they needed with eating, drinking and maintaining their health.
People spoken with said that the staff were caring, promoted their independence and respected their privacy and dignity. People were able to maintain contact with friends and relatives and pursue social activities and interests.
People’s needs were assessed and people felt their needs were being met and that staff knew them well and responded to their needs appropriately. Everyone spoken with were confident that their concerns or complaints would be listened to and acted upon and people were asked to comment on the quality of service they received. The provider ensured they had an overview of these comments so they could identify where the service needed to improve.
The management of the service was stable, and managers were open and accessible to people, staff and relatives. People were able to contribute to suggestions for improvement. However, quality assurance processes had not been fully implemented.
We saw that people's needs had been assessed by a range of health professionals and people's healthcare needs had been monitored and met. One person told us, 'The care is very good, I am really pleased'
People were encouraged to eat a healthy and nutritious diet. People told us that they had a choice of what to eat and liked the food provided. One person said, 'You can have full English for breakfast, a hot meal at lunchtime and another at night if you wanted to. There's always plenty of choice and plenty of it. If you ask for a drink or something to eat you can have it whenever you want. It's like a five star hotel.'
People had been given their medicines as they had been prescribed by their doctor to ensure their health and wellbeing.
Staff had the skills and knowledge to know how to safely support people who lived there to meet their needs. Staff told us that they were well supported in their role and this helped them to know how to support people who lived there.
People were asked for their views about the home and these were listened to. We saw that audits were completed and action was taken to make improvements where needed.
We talked to three people on the day of our visit. They told us they were very comfortable and felt safe, the food was good and staff listened to them and gave them time.
One person said there were things to do but these were the same every week.
One person said she valued the weekly communion service. Another person told us they wanted to go home to their family but were not able and they were very sad.
We spoke to two relatives, they told us they were very pleased with the care and support given by the staff, they were wonderful. They told us Berwood was by far the best home they had visited and they were happy to leave their relative in this home.
We spoke to three members of staff who told us they felt well supported particularly by the new registered manager. They enjoyed their work and felt they were listened to and respected.
We talked to other senior staff on duty, they told us how they work with their staff teams and the registered manager to ensure good levels of care were given. They told us how improvements in care and the environment were suggested by staff and if possible these improvements are discussed, agreed and actioned.