Archived: Broughton House Home for Ex-Service Men and Women

Our inspection was co-ordinated and carried out by two inspectors, who addressed our five questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. One person who used the service told us: 'I feel happy and safe here.' A visitor said 'I think people are safe here.'

Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff were able to demonstrate how they would safeguard the people they supported. This meant that people were safeguarded from abuse.

There were some systems in place to make sure that the management and staff learned from events such as accidents, incidents and complaints.

The service had policies in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications have been submitted. All nurses we spoke to were able to demonstrate a good understanding of the relevant legislation though they had not received any recent refresher training. We were told that further training in respect of the Mental Capacity Act would be scheduled for all staff.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic.

People who used the service and staff told us there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff on duty. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough.

There were policies and procedures in place to make sure that unsafe practices were identified and people protected. We were told that policies were currently being reviewed.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with the people who used the service or their representatives, though that was not always clearly demonstrated in care plans. Special dietary mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans were required.

Most people and relatives we spoke to said that their care needs were being met by the service.

Relatives confirmed they were able to visit their loved ones at any time and speak in private. They felt welcomed by accommodating staff. One relative told us; 'Always make you feel welcome, doesn't matter what time we come'.

Is the service caring?

We observed people were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented; 'Staff are very helpful.' 'Staff are very good and caring.' 'Staff are wonderful, I can't think of a bad one.' 'They have responded to all my concerns.'

People's preferences, interests and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities inside and outside the service regularly. One person who used the service told us; 'Activities take place on a daily basis, always something going on. You are not forced to do anything, I've even been taken on holiday to Southport.' People were taken out on trips and visits to local attractions and places of interest with the home's own minibus.

People we spoke to were aware of the complaints procedure. We looked at how complaints had been dealt with and found appropriate response had been made in an open, thorough and timely manner. People can therefore be assured that complaints would be investigated and action is taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. We saw evidence of communication and involvement with health professionals.

The service had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service delivered. It was not always clear that any shortfalls identified were addressed promptly. We were informed that the provider was currently reviewing its practices and procedures.

Staff told us they felt valued and supported and were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They felt that staffing levels were appropriate to meet peoples' needs. This helped ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

Comments made from people included;

'I feel that staff respect my dignity. It's friendly and very homely. Staff let me do as much as I can by myself and I have been able to keep my independence', 'I find no fault with my care and treatment'.

Care records showed that people's needs were assessed; these included any risks to their health and welfare so that peoples safety could be maintained and included direction for staff about the needs and wishes of people and how they were to be supported.

During the inspection we observed how people were being cared for. People were well groomed, appropriately dressed and people we spoke with told us they were happy in the environment of Broughton House.

Staff were aware of the procedure to follow to report abuse allegations. Further training was planned to ensure the home's arrangements to manage and prevent abuse were rigorous.

Medicines were managed safely in Broughton House. Staff had received some training and plans were in place to follow this up with regular supervision to reinforce and support learning.

A system was in place to check how care was delivered. Audits were due to be reviewed to enable management to identify any shortfalls and to plan improvements.