Archived: Bromelia House Also known as Poppy Fields Care

Bromelia House was first registered with the Care quality Commission on 17 April 2014. This was the services first inspection since its registration.

Bromelia House is a large three bedroomed house, of which two bedrooms are available for people to stay in. The ethos of the service is to provide young people with the care, advice and guidance they need to live independently in the community and equip them with the skills to build successful adult lives. The service also offers a four week period of support following transition to ensure people are coping with independent living. We were told this would be extended as necessary and that informal support would continue as long as the young person felt they needed it in terms of offering advice and signposting people to the relevant services they needed.

Young people are referred into the service from a range of settings including; family breakdown, foster care or other residential settings. Bromeila House is located in the village of Ingol, on the outskirts of the City of Preston.

At the time of our Inspection the service was full as two young people were living at the home. One of the young people were beginning to look for their own accommodation after being at the home for 15 months.

The registered manager, who was also the proprietor and nominated individual for the service, was present throughout the inspection process.

The home had safeguarding procedures in place that people at the home and staff were aware of and understood. However when looking at people’s care plans we saw a number of incidents which we thought should have been reported the local authority safeguarding team and had not been therefore safeguarding principles had not been followed.

We found completed application forms; Disclosure and Barring (DBS) clearances and identification checks were in place. Staff we spoke with confirmed that they had attended a formal interview and did not begin work until appropriate clearances were obtained. However we did not find any references on file for people despite details being given for references within people’s application forms. We have made a recommendation about this.

We looked at the systems for medicines management. We found the service operated safe systems with regards to the management of medicines.

People’s care plans included a detailed medical history so staff were aware of any specific health related risks. Care plans also included guidance for staff about the health care support people required.

We saw that the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff told us they felt supported in their role and that they received a thorough induction prior to them starting work. All of the staff we spoke with talked positively about how the home was managed and that they were able to discuss issues freely with the registered manager who was always available either by telephone if needed. However whilst staff said they were supported we found no evidence of formal supervisions or appraisals within staff files.

Throughout the inspection we observed people interacting with staff. It was obvious that they knew staff well and felt at ease in their company. All the interactions we observed were seen to be positive and this was the message that both young people conveyed to us throughout our discussions with them.

The home had a complaints policy in place that was seen to be up to date and contain the relevant information for people to raise concerns internally and to external agencies. Staff we spoke with knew the complaints procedure and how to assist people if they needed to raise any concerns.

Detailed assessments were in place that had been carried out prior to each person’s admission into the home and then shortly afterwards. A pre-admission care proposal was completed prior to a person being accepted into the home that covered a wide range of health and social care issues.

There were lots of examples of meaningful activities taking place both within the home and externally.

Whilst we found the service to be extremely knowledgeable about the people living at the home, and that care plans and daily records were of a good standard we found little in the way of formal recorded audits or quality checks taking place at the home.

Following discussion with the registered manager it became apparent the service had not submitted some statutory notifications, as required, with regard to significant events at the service which should also have been notified to the local authority safeguarding team. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff we spoke with talked positively about their employer. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities.

We found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 in relation to Safeguarding and Good Governance.

You can see what action we took at the end of this report.