You are here

Bricklehampton Hall Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 23 April 2014
Date of Publication: 16 May 2014
Inspection Report published 16 May 2014 PDF | 83.58 KB

Overview

Inspection carried out on 23 April 2014

During a routine inspection

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

• 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?

Systems had been in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had made improvements following out last inspection in December 2013. There were now appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff employed by the home had been recruited effectively. The provider demonstrated that appropriate checks had been obtained and that staff were trained and supported in their role.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no current applications were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them, but they were not always involved in writing their care plans due to their conditions. The provider had also considered information and involvement from relatives, other health professionals and staff. People told us: “They really care for me here” and: “I am comfortable and looked after here”.

Visitors confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible and the home were accommodating and welcoming.

The provider had been able to demonstrate that they had cooperated with other providers to ensure people received the care and treatment that met their needs. For example, we saw that people were supported with having eye and hearing tests.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People told us: “They (staff) are helpful when I need them” and: “They take things at my pace, I am not rushed”. A relative told us: “I am here every afternoon, it’s like I am part of a larger family now”.

Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people's individual needs, and knew how to support people so that their needs were met. Staff spoke about people as individuals and we observed that staff listened to people’s views and opinions. One person told us: “I have a sense of humour that the staff here now know”.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly and the provider had staff dedicated to arranging and supporting people to attend these activities.

We saw the home had been responsive to people’s changing needs and had responded to professional advice that had been provided. For example, we saw the home had requested one person to be reassessed due to their changing needs. Appropriate equipment to meet the person’s needs had then been sought.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. We saw records that identified shortfalls and the actions that had been taken to address them. The provider listened and responded to people, staff and visitors who had left comments and suggestions. We saw that responses to the comments left had been made available for people to see.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us that they felt the home provided a good quality of service and people were well cared for. They told us that the system in place meant they felt supported in their role and where to find information when needed. For example, there was information in each person’s room for the staff to follow and record the care provided.