Archived: Burnriggs

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask; Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found;

Is the service safe?

When we arrived at the service we were greeted by a member of staff. We were asked for our identification and to sign in the visitor's book. This meant that the appropriate actions were taken to ensure that the people who used the service were protected from others who did not have the right to access their home.

We reviewed staffing records regarding the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and saw this training was up to date. The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. The manager, team leader and two members of staff spoken with were able to demonstrate a knowledge and understanding of the MCA and DoLS. The manager informed us about the DoLS in operation at the time of our inspection.

The service held weekly fire safety checks and each person who used the service had completed fire risk assessments in their care plans.

Is the service effective?

People's care records showed that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. The records were reviewed monthly and updated as required. This meant that staff provided information that was up to date about how people's needs were met.

Is the service caring?

We saw that the staff interacted with people who used the service in a caring, respectful and professional manner. Menus were individual with regard to what people chose to eat. Each person was supported to pursue activities they enjoyed. The staff had arranged to work with other organisations to support people to follow their life-style choices.

Is the service responsive?

On the day of our inspection the service had supported a person to take their daily bike ride, but had agreed to shorten the route and take plenty of fluids due to the extreme heat. People who used the service were provided with the opportunity to participate in activities which interested them. People's choices were taken into account and listened to.

We saw that the service had involved families and advocates appropriately to support people and work with the service to identify needs and agree care plans. People's care records showed that where concerns about their wellbeing had been identified, the staff had taken appropriate action to ensure that people were provided with the support they needed.

Is the service well-led?

The service had worked with people who used the service and consulted the staff to refurbish and redesign the interior of the service. This was in order to create additional rooms and activities for the people who used the service.

The service had a quality assurance system in place and robust recruitment arrangements.

We spoke with six members of staff from the service, observed care and looked at three personal care records. We found that on some occasions restraint and the environment was not assessed appropriately in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Mental Capacity Act 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant that we could not be assured that restraint was being used in a safe way.

We found that the service protected people against the risks associated with the unsafe use of medicine. This was because the service had suitable arrangements in place in relation to the management of medication.

People using the service had complex needs, including various abilities of communication. This meant that it was difficult for people to tell us their experience of using the service. We spent time with one person observing the care and support they received from staff. Support staff were observed acting in a professional manner. They were also friendly, caring and respectful of this person's needs and responded promptly to their requests for assistance.

Where people were unable to directly express their views we saw that various methods of communicating were being used, including assistive technology. One person communicated with us using speech and symbols, they told us that they had been horse riding that day and wanted to go to the Zoo.

Questionnaires completed by relatives provided good feedback about the service. Relatives were in agreement that the service provided was generally good including the support provided by staff, food provided and activities, however comment that they would like to be more involved in decisions made about the care and support of their relative.