You are here

Archived: Bradley House Residential Care Home Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 16 September 2016

We carried out this unannounced inspection of Bradley House Residential Care Home on 2 August 2016. During our last inspection on 17 March 2015, we identified four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The breaches related to hazards in the environment, cleanliness, storage of records and quality assurance systems. The provider wrote to us with an action plan of improvements that would be made. During this inspection we found most of the improvements had been made.

You can read the report from our last inspection by selecting the ‘All reports’ link for Bradley House Residential Care Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Bradley House Residential Care Home is a 10 bedded home that provides accommodation for persons who require personal care. At the time of our inspection there were nine people living in the care home.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. The registered manager was also the registered provider. Registered providers and registered managers 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.

At our inspection on 2 August 2016, we found that sufficient action had been taken in relation to the requirement actions we had issued following the previous inspection. Overall, although we found improvements had been made, further improvements were still needed.

We identified a breach of regulation with regard to medicine management. People’s medicines were not managed safely. There were shortfalls in the recording and administering of some medicines. The recording of medicines, including those that require additional security was not sufficient. Topical medicines were not always recorded to confirm they had been applied.

People who lived in the home felt safe. Staff had a clear understanding of how to safeguard people from avoidable harm and abuse. Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to meet the needs of people living in the care home.

People were supported to eat and drink and their nutrition and hydration needs were being met. We found people’s specific and assessed needs were not always recorded for the use of fluid thickening agents. We have recommended that current NHS guidance is followed.

People told us they enjoyed living in the home and felt cared for by staff. They told us staff knew their needs well. Staff were kind and caring. We found people were being treated with dignity and respect and we found people’s privacy was maintained.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant people’s rights were protected.

There were some improvements in the systems and audits in place to assess and monitor the quality of the home. Further improvements were needed and we found shortfalls in relation to systematic completion of audits and identification of shortfalls. For example, in relation to management of medicines and the health and safety risks of scalds from baths. We have recommended that the provider completes a thorough scalding risk assessment in accordance with current Health and Safety Executive guidance.

We found one breach of the regulations at this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was not always safe.

Medicines were not always safely managed.

Staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs. People who used the service and staff spoke positively about staffing levels.

Staff had been trained and recognised their role in safeguarding people from harm and abuse.

Recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate checks were completed before staff started in post.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received supervision and training to carry out their roles.

People’s rights were protected in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Where people had been deprived of their liberty, this was done in accordance with legal requirements.

People received support with their health care needs and advice was sought from health care professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated with dignity and respect by staff.

Staff provided caring, thoughtful and compassionate care.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s changing and current needs.

A complaints procedure was in place and this was easily accessible.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 16 September 2016

The service was not always well- led.

Systems were partly in place for monitoring quality and safety. Further improvements were needed to make sure shortfalls were identified and acted upon.

Staff were supported sufficiently and given opportunities to express their views and concerns.

People and staff felt confident with the registered manager. People told us the registered manager was accessible to them.

Staff enjoyed working in the home. They told us it was a good place to work and they felt valued by the registered manager.