You are here

Archived: Barham Care Centre Limited Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 30 August 2017.

Barham Care Centre is a nursing home which provides accommodation and support to older people and those living with dementia. The service can accommodate a maximum of 44 people. On the day of our inspection there were 27 people using the service and two of those people were in hospital.

Our last inspection of 13 May 2016 we rated the service as requiring improvement overall. This was because we found the service was not meeting the requirements in relation to safety, providing an effective service and we had concerns about how the service was led. We received an action plan from the service explaining how the service would resolve these issues which we used to plan this inspection and check that the improvements had been made.

At this inspection we found the service had taken the necessary action to resolve the issues identified in 2016.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

Since our last inspection the registered manager had established themselves into their management position. They had addressed the issues identified with medicines administration and recording, safe recruitment practice, standards of cleanliness in the kitchen and ensuring quality and safety systems were established and operated effectively.

The registered manager used a dependency tool to identify the number of staff required to be on duty to meet the assessed needs of the people using the service. We found there were sufficient staffing of qualified nurses and care staff to meet people’s identified needs. Nursing staff with the support of the team leaders organised the care to be provided to each person by the staff team.

Risks to people’s safety were identified and managed. Staff had received training in managing risk and how to provide a safe environment for people.

Staff received training in safeguarding and were aware of what actions they should take to safeguard people from potential, actual abuse and knew what actions to take to promote people’s safety and well-being.

There was now a robust staff recruitment policy and procedure in operation. This was operated to ensure only suitable staff were employed. Once employed staff were supported by an induction and regular supervision and appraisals were provided. Training was organised to develop and maintain staff skills including the nursing staff who had all revalidating their qualification. The management team were supported by regular visits from the company director.

There were suitable arrangements for the safe storage, management and disposal of medicines. There was a process and procedure in place for the recording of topical creams and lotions. All of the staff administering medicines had received training in the administration of medicines.

The service had been extended and refurbished since our last inspection including the renovation of the kitchen. There were regular environmental checks in place in operation for the entire service.

Staff were knowledgeable with regard to Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service had made referrals and worked with the local authority to support people who used the service with regard to MCA and DoLS.

People had their nutrition and hydration needs met through effective planning and delivery of nutritious menus. Menus were varied and took into account people’s dietary preferences.

The service had built up an effective and supportive relationship with the general practitioner service.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected by staff who were familiar with their needs and took into acc

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The service was safe.

There was a medicines policy and procedure in place. Staff had received training in how to administer and record medicines including the topical creams and lotions.

There was a policy and procedure in place for the recruitment of staff and the staff involved with this process had received training in the safe and effective recruitment of staff.

People had risk assessments and care plans in place to advise staff how to deliver care according to people’s needs and wishes.

The staff had received training in safeguarding adults and were aware of how to report safeguarding concerns they might have.

A dependency tool was in use to identify the number of staff required to provide care to the people who lived at the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received supervision and knew people well and were aware of their individual care needs.

There was a training programme in place for all staff which included understanding their roles and responsibilities with regards to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and training in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional needs were monitored.

The service had built relationships with other professionals to support the people using the service and was receiving support from the GP service.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and compassion.

Staff were understanding and attentive to people needs.

People’s privacy was promoted and respected by the staff.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The service was responsive.

People’s needs had been assessed and this information was used to construct their care plan.

The service had a complaints policy and procedure and people told us they would have no problem of using it if the need arose.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 September 2017

The service was well-led.

There were effective systems and processes in place to ensure the quality the service was effectively monitored.

The service had a positive culture and the manager walked around the service when on duty to address any issues identified at the time.

People, their relatives and staff were confident in the management of the service.