You are here

Burleigh House Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 April 2014
Date of Publication: 7 May 2014


Inspection carried out on 3 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives, four staff members and one visiting professional to help us understand the experience of people who used the service.

At a previous inspection completed on 2 August 2013 we identified areas of non-compliance with regulations we inspect against. We asked the provider to tell us how they intended to make improvements for the welfare and safety of people who used the service and when.

During this inspection, we checked if the provider had acted to improve the quality of service. We found some improvements had been made but further improvement was required. The provider need to ensure that suitable arrangements were in place for obtaining and acting in accordance with, the consent of people who used the service.

Is the service safe?

People who used the service were treated with dignity and respect. People told us they liked it at the home. One person who used the service told us, �I like it here, it�s very nice and I�m well looked after�. Another person told us, �The lady who saw me made me feel welcomed. It made me feel like people are going to understand you here�. Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

We noted that capacity assessments had been carried out for people judged not to have capacity to make specific decisions. Most staff had had received training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or training about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were able to explain the principles.

Is the service effective?

People�s care records were personalised, and the provider ensured that people�s dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where necessary. People who used the service said that staff spent time with them to understand their individual needs.

The provider needed to make further improvement to ensure that the records for people who should not be resuscitated (DNAR) indicated that other people who are involved in the care of the person had been involved in the decision. The records we saw during the inspection showed that only the doctor had been involved in making decisions about DNAR.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind, attentive and friendly staff. We saw that staff were caring and gave encouragement when supporting people. One person told us, �I�m happy with the way they look after X. She�s quite well looked after.� People told us that they did not have to wait for long if they needed assistance from staff. We saw that people were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained at all times.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people were involved in a range of activities in and outside the service. People told us that they went out for day trips, and we noted that people were encouraged to engage in activities outside the service if they were able to do so independently. People knew how to raise complaints and we saw that complaints were investigated and dealt with appropriately. People told us that staff always responded to their needs in a timely manner.

Is the service well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure care was joined up and effective. We saw records to demonstrate that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. People we spoke with told us that the manager was also available to deal with any concerns. Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.