• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Brighstone Care Limited

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Brighstone Grange, Brighstone, Newport, Isle of Wight, PO30 4DZ (01983) 740236

Provided and run by:
Brighstone Care Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

18 & 21 December 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 18 and 21 December 2015 and was unannounced. The home provides accommodation for up to 23 people, including some people living with dementia care needs. There were 21 people living at the home when we visited.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Staff followed the principles of legislation designed to protect people’s rights and liberties. They sought verbal consent from people before providing care and support.

Individual risks to people were managed safely and effective action was taken to reduce the level of risk. When people had experienced falls, senior staff reviewed the risks to reduce the likelihood of further falls.

Most people received personalised care from staff who understood and met their needs. However, some care records did not reflect people’s changing needs. We pointed this out to the registered manager who took immediate action to address this. Care plans provided comprehensive information about the way in which people wished to receive care and support. Staff knew people well, recognised when their needs changed and responded promptly.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse, and the provider responded appropriately to allegations of abuse. Clear systems were in place for managing medicines and stock levels tallied with the medicine administration records in all but one case.

People were cared for with kindness and consideration. Staff showed exceptional commitment to supporting people to attend events. They formed supportive relationships with people and promoted choice at every opportunity. Arrangements had been made for people to continue to practise their faith and the home hosted meetings of a local community group.

People’s privacy was protected and they were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. They were involved in planning and agreeing the care and support they received and staff encouraged them to make choices about every aspect of their lives.

Staffing arrangements were robust and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs at all times. Staff were suitably trained and most staff had obtained vocational qualifications or were working towards these. They were supported appropriately in their work and felt valued. The process used to recruit staff helped make sure that only suitable people were employed.

People praised the quality and choice of food and were involved in designing the menus. When people were at risk of not eating or drinking enough, staff provided appropriate support and monitored people’s intake effectively.

People saw doctors or nurses when needed and staff enjoyed good working relationships with healthcare professionals, who praised the quality of care delivered. Staff accompanied people to medical appointments to help make sure their needs were communicated effectively.

A wide range of activities was available to people. These had been tailored to meet people’s individual interests and included trips to local attractions in the home’s minibus.

The provider maintained a high level of communication with people through a range of newsletters and meetings. They consulted people about all aspects of the service and acted on their feedback. There was an appropriate complaints policy in place; complaints were investigated thoroughly and responded to promptly.

The provider took pride in creating a homely, personal environment; staff shared this vision and were committed to maintaining a relaxed atmosphere. People liked living at the home and felt it was well-led.

There was a clear management structure in place; staff enjoyed working at the home, were motivated and operated well as a team. There were clear systems in place to communicate information between staff and they were encouraged to make suggestions for improvements.

The home had an open and transparent culture. Visitors were welcomed and there were strong links with the local community. A range of audits was conducted to assess, monitor and improve the quality of service.

22 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

During this inspection we looked at how the home protected people from the risk of infections. This was because when we previously visited in August 2013 they were not compliant with this outcome. Although we met people who were living at the home we did not discuss this aspect of the service with them.

We spoke with four members of staff including the manager, housekeeping and care staff. Staff told us they had all received infection control training and had all the necessary equipment to reduce any risks of infection. The home was clean and there were systems in place to manage infection control risks.

19 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven of the 21 people who were living at the home. They all said they were happy with the way they were cared for. One person told us 'the food is excellent as are all the staff'. Another said 'I can choose what time I get up and go to bed, and what I do'. A third person told us about activities and said 'I can choose to join in if I want'. Although we were not able to have a conversation with some other people we met them and observed some of their care and staff interactions in the communal areas.

We spoke with all staff on duty including the registered manager. Staff were aware of how people should be supported, individual likes and dislikes and the help they required. Staff stated they felt they had sufficient time to meet people's needs and had completed relevant training. Staff were aware of people's needs and how these should be met.

We observed staff were courteous and respectful of people's views and choices were offered. The care we observed corresponded with care plans and risk assessments viewed. The home was clean and there were systems in place to manage infection control risks however, there was a need to review arrangements in relation to the laundry room and adjacent food storage area. There were also systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided.

27 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 11 of the 19 people who were living at the home. We met other people and spent some time in the home's communal areas observing people and the way they were cared for. People told us that they could make decisions and that the staff were 'pleasant and nice'. People said that they had no concerns about how their care needs were met. People commented that they could make choices and these were respected. We were told that staff were available when people needed them and knew what care they required. People told us that they felt safe and happy at the home. They told us that their privacy was respected and that staff always knocked on their doors before entering.

We spoke with two health professional involved in the care of people. They were complimentary about the way the service met people's needs. We were told that the home contacted them appropriately and followed guidance and suggestions.

We observed that staff were courteous and respectful of people's views and opinions and that dignity was respected. We saw that people were offered choices about meals, where they sat and activities. We observed appropriate support being given to people when moving from the lounge to the dining room at lunch time.