Archived: Butterley House Residential Home

Butterley House Residential Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people using the service.

At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. However, we found the service needed to make improvements to medicine management systems which meant ‘Is this service safe?’ was now ‘requires improvement’.

People felt safe and were protected from harm and abuse. Staff were knowledgeable in safeguarding people and knew how to respond if they had any concerns. Risks to people were assessed, managed and reviewed to minimise potential harm. The provider had safe recruitment processes in place. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.

Staff had the knowledge and skills needed to carry out their roles and received training and support to be enable them to care for people well. People were supported to maintain a balanced diet and enabled to maintain good health. The environment met people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. When people were not able to make decisions about their care and were being restricted, the provider ensured this was authorised legally.

People were supported by staff who were respectful and kind towards them. Staff knew people well and cared for them in a dignified manner. People’s privacy was respected and their independence promoted. People’s diversity was recognised and promoted by the staff; people were supported to follow their religious beliefs and to maintain important family relationships and visitors were made to feel welcome.

People were involved in the assessment and planning of their care. The staff responded to people’s changing needs and they received support that was individual to them. There were opportunities for people to participate in activities they enjoyed. People could raise any concerns or complaints and were confident their concerns were acted on. The staff and registered manager were approachable and listened to what people wanted to say.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the service and drive improvements. There was a positive culture within the home and staff felt supported by the management team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

All of the relatives we spoke with told us that the provider's staff cared for people in a safe and effective way.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This meant that the service could identify the risks to people and had an adequate system of service improvement.

Procedures were in place to support staff and maintain their skills and knowledge.

Procedures for dealing with emergencies were in place and staff were able to describe these to us. This meant that staff understood what to do in an emergency.

The home did not have effective systems in place to maintain safe systems of infection prevention and control. This meant that people were at risk of infection due to cross contamination.

Is the service effective?

Peoples care needs had been assessed and their care planned to reflect changes to their care needs.

All the relatives of people who used the service told us that they were happy with the standard of care that people received.

People were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Is the service caring?

Feedback from people and their relatives was positive about the standard of the care and support people received.

When speaking with staff it was clear that they cared for the people they supported.

Is the service responsive?

The provider had not received any complaints about the service.

The relatives we spoke with knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy, but they had not needed to complain.

The provider was responsive and care designed and delivered to meet people's individual needs.

Is the service well-led?

A registered provider was in place. This meant that there was a person in place to coordinate and oversee the standard of care and support people received.

The service had an effective quality assurance system. Records showed that regular audits had taken place to identify and risks to the safety of people who used the service. Where issues had been found action plans had been put in place to deal with them.

The service had recorded the details of accidents that had occurred. These had been investigated and the cause of the issues identified.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

People told us they experienced safe and appropriate care and support. They were very complimentary about the staff and said they enjoyed living at the home. A relative told us 'I work in social care myself and know what good care looks like and that is what happens here at Butterley House'.

The provider was maintaining a clean and appropriate environment.

People using the service receive their medicines at the times they need them and in a safe way.

The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employ staff.