Archived: Berry Pomeroy

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.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding policies and procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. One person told us that if they had a problem staff "See to it immediately". Systems were in place to make sure that both managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that good practice was adhered to and that unsafe practices were identified and people were protected.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes and people who do not have the mental capacity to make decisions regarding where they live. While no applications have needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place and staff were aware of the need to refer people for assessment if needed.

People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew people well. One person told us that staff were "very helpful". Another person told us that "staff are wonderful". Staff received the relevant training that ensured they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's care needs.

Is the service caring?

Staff were attentive and kind to the people who needed support. Staff told us they encouraged people to maintain their independence. We saw staff were patient and attentive to the needs of the people when supporting them. People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded in the care plans we viewed. People using the service were offered a resident quality assurance survey to complete. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised they had been addressed and discussed with the person.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Information had been recorded on detailed care plans. We saw that where a care need was identified it was acted upon swiftly. People told us they regularly discussed their needs with their keyworker. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People living at the home completed a range of activities. One person we spoke with told us that if they had a problem "it's dealt with".

Is the service well-led?

The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. A quality assurance system was in place which evaluated and monitored the service monthly. Where issues were identified these had been addressed. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurances that were in place. Staff knew that they needed to report any concerns they had to a manager and told us that managers were approachable and responded immediately. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

The home employed a dedicated housekeeper and assistant as well as someone solely to do the laundry. As a result the home was cleaned to a high standard. We found that there were systems in place to maintain standards and minimise risk of infection.

We looked at the entire building in relation to its suitability and safety. The home was well designed and adapted to provide a safe and comfortable place for people to live and receive the support they required. There was also a well maintained level accessible garden for people to enjoy. Individual rooms were well decorated, comfortable and homely.

We spoke to staff who told us they felt well supported and 'listened to.' They told us they were encouraged and supported if they wanted to do more training. Staffing levels were generous and this was reflected in the high standards of all aspects of care provided at the home.

People at the home told us they would feel comfortable if they ever felt the need to complain. We saw a prominently displayed notice in the entrance hall explaining how to complain and were shown the complaints file.