You are here

Bearwardcote Hall Residential Home Good

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 19 May 2014
Date of Publication: 13 June 2014
Inspection Report published 13 June 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 19 May 2014

During a routine inspection

Bearwardcote Hall is a care home registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 38 people. There were 33 people in residence when we undertook our inspection, and one person was in hospital.

This inspection was unannounced which meant the provider and the staff did not know we were coming. We spoke with nine people living in the home, one visitor, five staff and the deputy manager.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time. A new manager was in post and they were in the process of submitting their registered manager�s application to CQC.

At our last inspection in October 2013 we made two compliance actions regarding recruitment practices and the quality monitoring of the service. This meant the provider had to make improvements to demonstrate they were fully protecting people using their service in these areas. We found that suitable and sufficient improvements had been made where we had identified concerns. We saw the provider had put right what was required.

Was it safe?

People we spoke with told us they felt safe. One person told us, �I would rather be in my own home, but it�s the second best thing and I do feel safe here.� Another person said, �They are wonderful staff they have the patience of Job. I have never heard a raised voice in six years. I see them handle people; they are ever so good and so calm.�

Staff handled medicines safely. Records in relation to medication administration, protocols and temperature checks were in place which meant medicines were well managed.

We saw recruitment records demonstrated there were systems in place to ensure the staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

The provider and staff needed to increase their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider needed to ensure suitable information about capacity and consent was evident. No DoLS applications had been and although these may not be required

Was it effective?

People�s health, care and support needs were assessed with people using the service and/or their relative or advocate. We saw people�s care records were up to date and reflected individual current needs.

People had access to a range of health care professional which included doctors, opticians and dentists to ensure their health needs were met.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received and their needs had been met. One person said, �It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of the people�s support needs and knew people well. We saw the staff had received training to meet the needs of the people using the service.

Was it caring?

We saw people were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People�s rights, privacy and dignity were considered. One relative told us, �The staff are amazing, they are so respectful, kind and caring.�

When speaking with staff it was clear they genuinely cared for the people they supported. People told us the staff were kind and thoughtful. The staff knew how to support people in a caring and sensitive manner.

People had detailed care and support plans relating to all aspects of their support needs. They contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded.

Was it responsive?

People told us the staff were responsive to their needs, one person said, �They are good at answering the buzzer, they respond quickly. When I ring, they are there.�

We saw people�s needs had been assessed before they moved into the service. We saw records where people using the service had met with their named member of staff on a monthly basis to discuss what was important to them and this information was recorded in their care records to ensure these reflected people�s preferences.

People had access to activities in their own home and also in the community. They had been supported to maintain or forge relationships with friends and relatives. One person said, �I never get bored.� Another person told us they had opportunities to be involved in activities in the home such as laying tables, updating the menu board and dusting.

Some of the staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found some information was in place of how to support people who could not make decisions for themselves, but further evidence was needed.

Was it well led?

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. We saw records which showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving. One person told us, �You only need to mention something and it is sorted really quickly.�

There were systems in place to make sure the staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents and concerns. This helped to reduce the risks to people using the service and helped the service to continually improve and develop.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and knew there were quality assurance processes in place. One staff member said, �It like home from home. We all really care about getting things right.�