Ernest Bold Resource Centre

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Staff supported at a local care home where staff were depleted due to COVID-19.

¿ Staff created a video for people isolating at home to keep them updated of changes at the service and to encourage them to stay in touch.

¿ Staff sent individualised wellbeing packages to people who were not using the service during COVID-19 to maintain their wellbeing.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

The provider continues to provide a ‘good’ service. People are kept safe by staff who know how to manage risks to keep people safe and are confident to report concerns. There are sufficient numbers of staff to support people and medicines and infection control practices are in place.

People were supported by staff who had been well trained and ensured they had sufficient amounts to eat and drink. People could access healthcare services where needed and had their rights upheld in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Staff were kind and demonstrated that they treated people with dignity whilst promoting their independence. People were involved in their care and records showed that care was personalised to reflect people’s individual preferences. People had good access to activities that met their individual interests. Complaints made were investigated and resolved.

The registered manager had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The audits completed ensured that areas for improvement were identified and acted upon. People and their relatives were given opportunity to feedback on their experience of the service and this feedback was acted upon. The registered manager had developed effective links with other organisations to improve the quality of the service.

More Information is in the detailed findings below.

Rating at last inspection: Good (Report published 31 December 2015)

About the service: Ernest Bold Resource Centre is a residential care home that was providing short term respite care to 2 people who were younger adults with learning disabilities at the time of the inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

This inspection was completed by one inspector. On the day of our inspection we found that four people were staying at Ernest Bold Resource Centre. Due to their complex needs or health conditions, we were not able to speak with all of the people who used the service. We observed their experiences to inform our inspection. We spoke with two people who used the service, one relative, the manager, two team leaders and three care staff.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people told us, what we observed, the records we looked at and what staff told us. We used the evidence we collected during our inspection to answer five questions. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. One person told us, "I feel safe here." Safeguarding procedures were in place and staff understood their role in safeguarding the people they supported. Staff were aware of the provider's whistleblowing policy.

Staff sought people's permission when they supported them with their care needs. However, the provider had not assessed people's capacity to consent to their care and support. This meant people's rights were not protected.

Staff knew about people's risk management plans and we saw they were supported in line with those plans. This meant people were cared for in a way that protected them from harm.

The provider worked well with health care providers to ensure people's health needs were met and they were protected against harm.

We found the provider did not employ sufficient numbers of appropriately skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

Systems were not in place to make sure that the manager and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and checks made on the service. This increased the risk to people.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We found no applications had been made to the local authority because the provider had not assessed people's capacity to consent to remaining in the home.

Is the service effective?

We found that care plans and risk assessments were sufficiently detailed to ensure people received appropriate care. This meant people were receiving effective care that met their needs.

Where people had complex needs that required the input of specialist health care services, assessments had been made by the appropriate professionals. Their recommendations were carried out by staff. This meant the provider worked well with other services to ensure people's health care needs were met.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and caring staff. We saw that staff were patient and encouraged people to maintain their independence. One person told us, "The staff are nice."

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

Is the service responsive?

People had the opportunity to plan and engage in a range of different activities that they enjoyed each day.

Where care staff had noticed people's changing needs, their care plans were updated to reflect this.

People, their relatives and staff were not asked for their views about the care provided.

Is the service well led?

We found the provider had some risk management systems in place but these were not checked to ensure risk was managed effectively and promptly.

We found staff were not always sure about their roles and responsibilities.

We found information contained in staff rotas was not always accurate and it was difficult for staff to identify the correct senior staff member to provide management support. The manager told us they would rectify this immediately.

People received care which met their needs. A relative told us, 'No issues here. It's very, very good'.

People were offered a choice of nutritious meals. One relative told us, 'The food smells from the kitchen are good'.

We found that, on the day of our inspection, there were enough staff to support people's needs, although records showed that some staff training was out of date.

The service maintained a number of audits to ensure the quality and safety of care. People's views about their care were obtained by the provider.

We found that people were supported in making day to day decisions about the care they received. People's values and diversity were respected and promoted.

The care people received was reflected in their care plans, and they received care which met their needs. One person told us staff, 'Give me all the help I need'.

Arrangements were in place to ensure that people were protected from harm. One person told us they felt safe. Staff were clear about how they could report concerns outside of the service.

We found that staff were recruited in a safe way and correct checks were carried out to ensure their suitability to care for people. One person told us, 'Yes- staff are skilled'.

The service had a clear complaints procedure which was accessible to people. One person told us that they would be confident in speaking to the manager if they had a complaint.