You are here

Bricklehampton Hall Requires improvement

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 6, 9 December 2013
Date of Publication: 11 January 2014
Inspection Report published 11 January 2014 PDF | 82.19 KB

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Not met this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 6 December 2013 and 9 December 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. However these had not identified shortfalls identified as part of this inspection.

Reasons for our judgement

We found that there were various methods used to gain the views and experiences of people about the standards of care they received.

The registered manager told us that they had sent out surveys to people who used the service, their relatives and other professionals. We looked over the recently returned forms. The majority of responsive were positive. Comments seen included: “High standards of medical care. Supportive compassionate treatment by all staff” and: “I would highly recommend”. Other comments included: “Staff are marvellous” and: “Medical needs are met at a very high level”.

We viewed records of complaints made about service delivery. We found that records were detailed and showed how the compliant was addressed and actions taken to prevent a reoccurrence.

There were systems in place that helped the registered manager to check people received care that met their needs and was safely delivered. Prior to our inspection the registered manager had become aware that hoists had not received their regular service. Although repairs had taken place following an earlier service the records did not always match.

We saw that the registered manager carried out audits of care delivery. These included medicines. This meant that the registered manager had arrangements in place to monitor the quality of their services to ensure that all aspects of the care people received were being delivered well. The registered manager accepted that improvements were needed in the management of medicines.