Archived: Berry Pomeroy

Updated 10 February 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 28 and 29 December 2016. It was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. We reviewed the provider's information return (PIR). We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the care provided. We considered the information which had been shared with us by the local authority and other people, looked at safeguarding alerts which had been made and notifications which had been submitted. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law.

We met with 11 people who lived at Perry Pomeroy and observed their care, including the lunchtime meal, medicines administration and activities. As some people had difficulties in communication, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with four people’s relatives and visitors, and a district nurse. We inspected the home, including people’s bedrooms, sitting rooms, the dining room and bathrooms.

We spoke with seven of the staff, including care workers, laundry and domestic workers, kitchen workers, and maintenance workers. We also met with the acting manager.

We ‘pathway tracked’ five of the people living at the home. This is when we looked at people’s care documentation in depth, obtained their views on how they found living at the home and made observations of the support they were given. It is an important part of our inspection, as it allowed us to capture information about a sample of people receiving care.

During the inspection we reviewed records. These included staff training and supervision records, staff recruitment records, medicines records, risk assessments, accidents and incident records, quality audits and policies and procedures.

Updated 10 February 2017

This inspection took place on 28 and 29 December 2016. It was unannounced. There were 18 people living in the home when we visited. People cared for were mainly older people. People had a range of care needs including stroke, heart conditions, breathing difficulties and arthritis. Some people needed support with their personal care and mobility needs. Some people were living with milder forms of dementia.

Berry Pomeroy is two large town houses which have been joined together. People’s bedrooms were provided over four floors, with a passenger lift in-between. There were a range of sitting rooms and a dining room, with an enclosed garden to the rear. Perry Pomeroy is situated in a residential road in Eastbourne. The provider for the service is Eastbourne Free Church Women's Council Incorporated Limited.

Berry Pomeroy had a registered manager. 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. The registered manager was on maternity leave at the time of this inspection. The provider had informed us about this. They had also informed us they had appointed an acting manager while the registered manager was on maternity leave. The acting manager was an experienced manager who had worked at Berry Pomeroy in the past.

The last inspection took place on 16 July 2014. At that inspection we did not find any issues of concern.

At this inspection, we found the provider’s systems for audit required improvement because their audits had not identified there was a lack of consistency in people’s care plans and documentation also some documentation and audits relating to risk were not in place. The provider’s other systems for audit were effective, including receiving and acting on feedback from relevant persons.

Risk to people was prevented by the provider’s systems, these, included fire safety and maintenance of the building. People had individual assessments for risk and where risk was identified, care plans were put in place to reduce their risk.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe way and there were full records about supporting people with their medicines. All medicines were securely stored. People received the support they needed to enable them to eat and drink what they wanted. They could choose what they are and drank and where they ate their meals. Staff were available to support people who needed assistance with eating and drinking.

People said there were enough staff on duty to support them. Staff were available to respond quickly to people when they needed assistance. Staff were recruited in an effective way, to ensure they were safe to care for people.

People and their relatives said staff were caring. Throughout the inspection, we saw many examples of a caring attitude from staff to people. Staff supported people’s independence and helped them make choices. People’s privacy and dignity was respected in their daily lives.

People had care plans, which they and their relatives were involved with drawing up. Staff followed people’s care plans and knew people as individuals. Where people needed support from external professionals, such as the district nurse or speech and language therapist (SALT), the home ensured referrals took place promptly and professionals’ directions were followed.

People said how much they enjoyed the activities provided, including the range of trips out of the home. A range of activities were provided to suit people’s diverse needs. People were fully supported in participating in activities as they wished.

Both people and staff confirmed they were trained in their roles. Staff were supervised to ensure they could provide effective care to people. Staff knew how to ensure people were protected against risk of abuse. Staff were aware of their responsibilities where people lacked capacity. Where relevant, people had individual assessments in relation to their capacity. No people had needed to be referred to the local authority under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Both people and staff said they could raise issues with managers when they needed to. They felt confident action would be taken if they did this. People and staff commented on the support they received from the acting manager. People said the home was well managed and supportive of their needs.