You are here

Archived: Bartlett Close Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The inspection took place on 21 March 2016. Bartlett Close provides accommodation and personal care to four people who have a learning disability, and the home was fully occupied at the time of the inspection. The service is located in the vicinity of shops, pubs and other local facilities, near the town of Witney in Oxfordshire. Staff are on duty twenty-four hours a day to support people living in the home.

At the last inspection on 20 March 2015 the provider was advised to take action to improve staff’s understanding of the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Enhancement of the systems for monitoring the quality of the service was also suggested. All these recommended actions had been completed.

The home had a registered manager in post. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A person who was able to communicate with us verbally told us that they felt safe and happy living at Bartlett Close. Staff understood the systems which were in place to protect people from harm, and were able to recognise and respond to abuse in the correct way. People had risk assessments in place to keep them safe whilst enabling them to be as independent as possible.

People’s prescribed medicines were safely managed by staff. Relevant systems and protocols in place ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff’s competence was reviewed regularly to ensure that the medicines were administered safely.

The legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager had completed the required training and was aware of their responsibilities. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of the DoLS.

Staff had been provided with training and showed an understanding about safeguarding adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider helped people to use advocacy services where required.

Staff received comprehensive induction and on-going training. Staff members were supported by the registered manager who gave them regular one-to-one supervisions.

People were provided with sufficient amounts of food and drink, with all recommendations from health care professionals being followed. People were supported by staff to access a range of health care services which ensured their health was monitored and maintained.

Relatives told us they were satisfied with the care people received. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People, their families and advocates were involved in the process of planning and reviewing their care. Care plans contained information as to the support and care people required to meet their needs. Staff met people and other interested parties to review and update the plans of care to ensure that people’s needs were responsively met and changes to people’s needs identified.

Staff and relatives told us that the service partly relied on agency care workers. Staff also stated it affected their workload as the agency care workers were not trained to administer medication or to use moving and handling equipment.

We saw that some of the people who use the service had raised complaints during the last 12 months. Staff had supported them through the process and the complaints had been investigated and responded to appropriately in a timely manner. Staff felt able to raise any concerns and knew that the management would act on them.

There was an open and transparent culture within the home. Staff understood the vision a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse as staff had an understanding of what abuse was and their responsibilities to act on concerns.

Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed and appropriate measures were taken to ensure staff supported people safely.

There were procedures in place to manage and administer medicines. Staff had received training in how to administer medications safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received training enabling them to support people effectively and safely. Regular supervision meetings and evaluation of training ensured staff understood how to implement their learning.

People were supported by staff who demonstrated their awareness of how to offer choice and make best interest decisions for people. People's freedom and rights were respected by all the members of staff.

People were offered a variety of healthy food to choose from and supported to maintain a safe, balanced and healthy diet. Guidance from health professionals was followed to meet special dietary needs of people.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was caring.

People were encouraged to make choices about how they wanted to be supported, and staff respected their preferences.

Staff had assisted people to decorate their rooms in an individualised way.

Relatives of people were welcome on the premises, and staff made sure people were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Relatives and staff felt it was often difficult for people to develop rapport with agency workers as they changed too frequently. The agency worker’s training was not recognised by the provider so they could not use moving and handling equipment or administer people’s medicines. As a result, too few staff members were able do these tasks.

People’s needs were assessed prior to their moving into the service. Both people and their representatives were involved in the on-going review and development of their care.

Care planning was person centred and was presented in a format that people could understand.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 May 2016

The service was well-led.

There was an open and caring culture throughout the home. Staff understood the provider's values and practised them in the delivery of people's care.

The manager demonstrated the knowledge and skills needed to perform the registered manager's role. The provider had a robust process to ensure the quality of the support remained to a good standard.