We carried out a review of the data available to us about Blue Roof Bungalow Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Blue Roof Bungalow Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Blue Roof Bungalow Care Home is a residential care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to 3 people diagnosed with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were 3 people using the service. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
Right Support:
Where appropriate, people could choose how they wanted to live and received the support they needed to do this. Staff encouraged and supported people’s choice and independence.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Staff knew people well and provided kind, caring, person-centred care and support. People received care and support in an environment that was safe, clean and well maintained. People could express choice about their living environment and were supported to personalise their bedrooms reflecting their choice of furnishings and items that were important to them.
People were encouraged and supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle and supported to enjoy a wide variety of hobbies and interests which maintained their sense of well-being.
Risks were well managed with the least possible restriction and people were well supported to maintain and develop an independent lifestyle and lead active lives.
Right Care:
Care and support were provided according to people’s individual needs and wishes. Staff ensured people’s privacy and dignity were respected. People felt safe with staff and enjoyed spending time with staff who they knew well. Staff had a good understanding of people's care needs and ensured care and support was personalised.
Risk assessments provided up to date guidance and information for staff. They gave clear information for how staff could ensure people made informed choices and lived their best lives.
Staff had training on how to recognise and report potential abuse. There were enough staff on each shift to ensure people were supported safely. Staff received a robust induction and completed specialist training, to ensure their knowledge remained current.
Right Culture:
There was a relaxed, friendly and welcoming atmosphere at the service. Staff demonstrated good understanding around providing people with person centred care and spoke knowledgably about how people preferred their care and support to be given.
People, relatives and staff had confidence in the leadership of the service and felt it was well-led. The registered manager maintained oversight of the service through regular conversations with people, relatives and staff as well as through a programme of quality assurance audits to ensure the service was working to the provider’s policies and procedures.
The provider’s monitoring processes were effective in helping to ensure people consistently received good quality care and support. Staff and volunteers knew and understood people well and were responsive to their needs. People and those important to them were involved in planning their care.
The registered manager demonstrated joint working with health professionals which provided specialist support to people, involving their families and other professionals as appropriate.
Relatives and staff felt confident in raising any concerns with the registered manager and told us any concerns would be listened to and acted upon.
Staff and relatives spoke of an open, supportive and friendly culture within the service, that placed people and their needs at the heart of the service.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 23 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for this service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Blue Roof Bungalow Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice.
People, staff and visitors were protected from risks of infection by robust policies and procedures. Visits were pre-booked and overseen by trained staff. Visitors completed a health questionnaire, had their temperature recorded and were asked to complete a rapid COVID-19 test, which provided a positive or negative test result within 30 minutes.
The home was visibly clean and hygienic. Staff used cleaning products recommended by the local NHS clinical commissioning group. Cleaning schedules included frequently touched surfaces such as handrails, light switches and door handles. Regular cleaning audits were conducted to ensure safety standards were maintained.
The home had a plentiful supply of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which was audited weekly. Staff were observed wearing this correctly. Staff had received training in how to put on and take off PPE. They had also been trained to complete the rapid COVID-19 tests. This coupled with competency checks helped ensure a consistency of approach and government guidelines were followed.
The home had supported people and staff to participate in the government’s COVID-19 testing and vaccination programme. Consent had been sought appropriately when required.
People and staff were encouraged to socially distance within the home. The interior layout and staff practice supported this. Only one staff member was allowed in the staff room at any one time and a one-way system had been introduced. These steps helped reduce the risk of cross infection.
The home recognised the importance of supporting people’s mental wellbeing. An activities coordinator offered personalised activities including music sessions and gardening. People were supported to maintain contact with those important to them via drive by visits, telephone and social media. For example, people were supported to stay in touch with friends from a day centre and take part in a local church’s virtual service. Staff had been given stress and resilience training and had access to private counselling.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
People were safe. Risk management plans were in place, staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and understood what to do if they were concerned or worried about someone. Recruitment was robust and people’s medicines were managed safely.
Staff felt they had the right knowledge, skills and support to understand their role and carry out their duties effectively. Staff were developing their skills in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but further improvements were required. There was a thoughtful approach to making sure people had a well-balanced diet and enjoyed their meals. People were supported to see health care professionals when they needed to.
Staff had a caring approach. They knew people extremely well and understood what was important to them.
Care plans had been developed to provide staff with accurate and up to date guidance on what help or support people needed. These were written from the person’s perspective and were detailed and thorough. People were supported to remain as independent as possible and develop their skills.
People were living active lives and staff supported them to do the things they enjoyed.
There was a complaints procedure in place.
Quality assurance systems made sure people were supported in a safe, effective, caring and responsive way.
Blue Roof Bungalow is a small care home for three adults with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection there were three people living at the home. The unannounced inspection took place over two days on 17 and 19 August 2015. One inspector visited the home on both days.
The home had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
Because of the nature of their learning disability we were unable to talk with people about their experience of living at the home, instead we observed how staff interacted with people over the two days.
We spoke with two relatives who were both very complimentary about the home. They told us their family member was safely supported for by staff who were skilled and caring. They commented on activities saying that people were supported to live full and interesting lives. They both commented on the leadership of the home. They said the manager was effective and accessible. Staff confirmed this. They all told us they were able to make suggestions and that the manager listened to them and acted upon their ideas wherever possible.
There were systems in place to make sure the service was safe for people. Staff had been trained in safeguarding adults and knew how to raise a concern. There were risk assessments in place that made sure risks to people were assessed and mitigated. Medicines were managed safely.
Staff had received the right support and guidance to ensure they understood how people needed or wanted to be supported. Staff told us that they received regular supervision and records confirmed this. The home had a training plan and staff told us the training they received was appropriate and helpful.
Staff were caring in their approach. People had good relationships with staff and freely approached them to ask for support, or to spend time with them. Staff consistently offered people choices, sought their consent and acted on what people told them they wanted or needed.
The home was responsive. People had care plans that provided staff with the right guidance. These were highly personalised and supported by other detailed plans such as communication guides.
The home was well led by a manager that staff and relatives thought highly of. There were systems in place to make sure the quality of care was good.
We spoke with relatives of the people who used the service and heard how people regularly spend time with their families and also attended local day services.
The documentation which we reviewed confirmed that care had been planned around information which people who used the service and their relatives provided and we were satisfied that the activity we observed reflected the plans which had been made.
The staff had taken account of risk to ensure peoples' safety and welfare and, where necessary considered the implications of relevant legislation.
We saw documentation regarding the requirements for safeguarding people who used the service. In discussion with the Registered Manager it was clear that that staff understood the requirements of the policy and when to seek further advice.
We looked for evidence of how the staff team was sufficiently qualified, skilled and experienced to meet the needs of the people who used the service. This was provided through a review of documentation and discussion with the Registered Manager and one of the relatives.
We also saw evidence that the provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and manage any risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service and others.
We used a formal method to observe people during the visit to help us understand their experiences. This involved observing people to record their experiences at four minute intervals. We observed their mood state, how they engaged in tasks and activities, and interacted with care workers, other people and the environment. Our observation of people living in the home indicated that people were treated with respect and given choices in their daily lives.
We observed that care workers and people living in the home were relaxed with each other laughing and enjoying each others company. We observed that care workers knew each person's likes and dislikes and had good relationships with the people they cared for. One professional told us 'client centred care ensures that choices are based on what individuals want to do'.
We found that people received support from relevant professionals to meet their needs, and that care plans were detailed and up to date. This helped the home's staff to provide individuals with the care and support they wanted or needed.
A relative we spoke to told us 'there is always a happy and pleasant atmosphere at Blue Roof Bungalow'.