Archived: Brooklands Care Limited

• Brooklands is a care home, people in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided. Both were looked at during this inspection.

• The service provides accommodation and care for up to five adults with learning disabilities. At the time of inspection there were five people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People received safe and effective care from staff who understood how to recognise and report issues of concern and potential abuse.

• The provider had effective systems in place to maintain staff’s skills and knowledge through training and development.

• Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service provision and to make any necessary improvements when shortfalls were identified.

• People’s care plans were detailed and contained good information for staff to help them meet people’s needs.

• The service applied the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people could live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and / or autism to live meaning full lives that include control over their own lives, choice and independence.

• Peoples independence was promoted. Each person was respected as an individual and their aspirations and wishes followed. Staff helped people to gain independence at the pace that suited them, and consistently looked for opportunities for people to take in the activities they wanted to.

Rating at last inspection:

• At our last inspection we rated the service good (report published 13th September 2016).

• At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from the inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns.

Why we inspected

• This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

• The service remained good in all five domains.

Follow up:

• We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to inspect as per our re-inspection programme.

• If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People felt safe with the home’s staff. Relatives had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm. Risks to people’s safety had been assessed and care records contained risk assessments to manage identified risks.

People were supported to take their medicines as directed by their GP. Records showed that there were appropriate arrangements for obtaining, storing and disposing of medicines.

Thorough recruitment processes were in place for newly appointed staff to check they were suitable to work with people. Staffing numbers were maintained at a level to meet people’s needs safely. Relatives and staff told us there were enough staff on duty and observations also confirmed this.

Food at the home was good. There was a rolling menu and people had regular meetings where they had an opportunity to discuss and plan menus. Staff provided support to people to help ensure meals were balanced and encouraged healthy choices

Staff were aware of people’s health needs and knew how to respond if they observed a change in their well-being. Staff were kept up to date about people in their care by attending regular handover meetings at the beginning of each shift. The home was well supported by a range of health professionals.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. The provider had suitable arrangements in place to establish, and act in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005

Each person had a care plan which informed staff of the support people needed. Staff received training to help them meet people’s needs. Staff received an induction and there was regular supervision including monitoring of staff performance. Staff were supported to develop their skills by means of additional training such as the National Vocational Qualification (NVQ) or health and social care diplomas. These are work based awards that are achieved through assessment and training. To achieve these awards candidates must prove that they have the ability to carry out their job to the required standard. All staff completed an induction before working unsupervised. People said they were well supported and relatives said staff were knowledgeable about their family member’s care needs.

People’s privacy and dignity was respected. Staff had a caring attitude towards people. We observed staff smiling and laughing with people and offering support. There was a good rapport between people and staff.

The registered manager operated an open door policy and welcomed feedback on any aspect of the service. There was a stable staff team who said that communication in the home was good and they always felt able to make suggestions. They confirmed the management team were open and approachable.

There was a clear complaints policy and people knew how to make a complaint if necessary.

The provider had a policy and procedure for quality assurance. The registered manager and her deputy worked alongside staff and this enabled them to monitor staff performance.

Weekly and monthly checks were carried out to monitor the quality of the service provided. There were regular staff meetings and feedback was sought on the quality of the service provided. People and staff were able to influence the running of the service and make comments and suggestions about any changes. Regular one to one meetings with staff and people took place. These meetings enabled the registered manager and provider to monitor if people’s needs were being met.

During our inspection we were told that the Registered Manager named at the beginning of this report, was no longer working at this home. We spoke to the new manager (who is going through the process of registration for this location), the proprietor, the deputy manager and three staff members during our visit. Due to their communication needs staff supported people to talk to us. We spoke with two relatives.

We saw that the home was clean and well maintained. People we spoke to told us that they felt safe and liked living at the home. Relatives told us that people were happy and that the home offered a relaxed, family environment for people.

We saw that the home had person centred plans of care in place and that this work had been newly implemented to develop a robust plan of care for each person. There was a wide range of information available about the support people required, however this was at times disorganised.

We saw that people were supported by a team of staff who had received training to support people's needs. Support for staff was being reviewed and new schedules of supervision had been implemented with the new manager.

People we spoke to told us that they felt safe and liked living at Brooklands.

We saw that people's privacy and independence were respected, people experienced safe and effective care based on risk assessments that met individual needs. Person centred plans were being developed at the time of our visit; people were being supported by a stable staff team.

People using the service were protected from abuse as they were supported by a staff team who had appropriate knowledge and training on safeguarding adults. We saw policies on whistle blowing and safeguarding. People's rights were respected.

We saw evidence that staff received ongoing training and supervision which provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.

The Provider had effective systems in place to monitor quality assurance and compliance.