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

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 19 May 2014, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people receive.

Reasons for our judgement

At the last inspection on 18 October 2013, the provider did not have all the information they needed to ensure risk assessments and the completion of audits kept people safe. On this inspection we found suitable and sufficient improvements had taken place.

People using the service, their representatives and staff confirmed they were involved in the running of the home. They told us they felt included and able to speak freely and in confidence. One person using the service said, “I can talk to any of the staff.” Another person said, “I feel things are dealt with well you can speak your mind.” This meant people using the service felt supported and could raise issues about the home.

We saw the care records were reviewed on a monthly basis to ensure that staff had the correct and up to date information to meet people’s needs. One staff member said, “I only work three days a week but I always get really good information on my return to work.” Staff we spoke with confirmed they were well informed which meant people received consistent care.

We looked to see if personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEP’s) were in place. PEEP’s provide information for staff and emergency services to follow to enable them to support people who cannot get themselves out of a building unaided during an emergency situation. The deputy manager was unsure if these had been completed and we asked for evidence to be forwarded onto us confirming their completion. We had not received this at the time of sending teh draft report. Not providing a PEEP meant that the required information was not available to enable people to be supported safely in the event of an emergency.

People told us the staff spoke with them on a regular basis to find out their views about the care they received. We saw documents such as resident meetings were used to gather information about how well the service was performing. One person using the service said, “This is my home, I am very content here anything we need will be addressed.” We saw minutes of meetings which demonstrated people’s views were asked regarding meals, activities or if they had any issues that they wanted to discuss about the running of the home. One person using the service said, “We talk about various things or what we want or need.” This meant people’s views were listened to and valued.

People’s feedback was recorded and analysed, and if required action was taken to improve quality in a prompt manner. This meant the provider used feedback to assess, monitor and improve the service.

We saw that regular audits were completed by the provider to assess and monitor the quality at the home. These audits covered topics which included; health and safety, infection control and medication management. All audits were evaluated and action plans to improve quality were in place where required. This meant that the registered manager and provider had an effective system in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service.

There was an effective system in place to assess and monitor the staff’s skills and understanding. Regular staff supervision sessions occurred meaning the provider assessed and monitored the staff’s ability to meet people’s needs.