The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Brynsworthy

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Higher Woodway Road, Teignmouth, Devon, TQ14 8RB (01626) 779364

Provided and run by:
Atlas Healthcare (South West) Limited

All Inspections

18 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 18 December 2014. At our last inspection in September 2013 we did not identify any concerns.

Brynsworthy is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to five people with a learning disability. The home specialises in providing a service for people with complex needs. On the day of our inspection, three people were living in the home.

There is 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People appeared happy and relaxed on the day of our inspection visit. People chose how they spent their time, were chatting with staff and smiling. Staff were attentive and available to support people with their chosen activities. Staff spoke with people in a friendly and respectful manner.

It was evident that staff had spent time with people, getting to know their preferences, understanding how to meet their needs, and building caring relationships. Staff commented “we give the best” and “we are passionate about what we do”.

Relatives felt people were safe at Brynsworthy. Staff considered possible risks to people’s safety and looked at ways of reducing those risks. People were encouraged to follow their own activities and interests whilst staff supported people to be as independent as they wanted to be.

People were cared for, or supported by, sufficient numbers of staff during our inspection. Staff were concerned that staffing levels had recently been reduced after one person moved to another home. The registered manager told us the reduced staffing levels were in place for a four week period and would be reviewed afterwards. There were on-call arrangements in place in case of emergency and a lone working risk assessment had been carried out. Robust recruitment procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff started work.

Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people with learning disabilities. Staff had received additional training that was specific to individual’s health needs. Staff received on-going support through one to one supervisions and staff meetings. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. One staff member commented “They’re a good manager; they really do care, and consider people’s interests”.

Care plans were personalised, including people’s preferences and what was important to them. There was detailed information on how to meet people’s health and care needs, communicate, recognise when people were unwell, and manage behaviours that may challenge the service. When people’s needs changed the registered manager acted quickly to ensure the person received the care and treatment they needed.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. People told us they took part in food shopping and preparing the dinner. Staff offered choices in food and drink and supported people to prepare them.

The atmosphere in the home was friendly and relaxed. Relatives commented “It’s a welcoming atmosphere, everybody is nice and happy” and “I’m very happy with the place, it’s smashing”. People were enabled to maintain their relationships with friends and family. There was an open culture within the service. Relatives told us they didn’t have any concerns but would always feel able to voice them. They commented “The registered manager is always on top of things, it’s made a big difference” and “they’re a good team, working for people”. Staff told us they felt supported by the team they worked with. One staff member commented “There’s good communication, things get passed on, and we review how we deal with things”.

There were effective quality assurance systems in place to monitor the service and drive improvements. Where shortfalls had been identified, action had been taken to improve practice. Safeguarding incidents had been appropriately reported to the local authority safeguarding unit and CQC. The registered manager had taken action to protect people and minimise the risk of further incidents.

5, 24 September 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At our inspection on 11 July 2013 we found that the provider was failing to meet the outcome entitled "staffing". We issued a warning notice in order to ensure that the necessary improvements were made. The focus of this inspection on 5 September 2013 and 24 September 2013 was to review the action taken by the provider to comply with the warning notice. It was evident that the provider had increased staffing levels to ensure people’s health, safety and welfare were safeguarded. This meant that people who lived in the home had their needs met by sufficient numbers of staff.

We found that the provider had made improvements to ensure the premises were safe for the people who lived there. We observed that a damaged radiator cover had been replaced. The provider had arranged for an electrical contractor to visit and carry out required electrical work. The work had been completed.

11 July 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection five people lived in the home. During our inspection, we spoke with all of the people who lived in the home and three staff.

One person told us “I like it here, we do nice things”. Four people we spoke with responded in a positive way when we asked them about living in the home and the care workers. During our visit we observed good interactions between care workers and people who lived in the home. We spoke with care workers who were able to tell us how they met people's care needs.

The home did not have clear procedures which covered how the premises were maintained. We found when issues were identified they were not addressed. This potentially placed people at risk of harm.

People who lived in Brynsworthy needed high levels of staffing to ensure they were kept safe and to enable them to take part in activities inside and outside of the home. We found there were not sufficient staff to meet the needs of each person.

12 December 2012

During a routine inspection

During the visit we saw many examples of when staff supported people to make choices. Daily records demonstrated that whenever possible the person being supported was involved in decisions about their care and lifestyle.

The staff showed awareness of how the people who lived in the home communicated distress, how they identified the cause of distress, and what action they took in response.

The home did not have clear procedures which covered how the premises were maintained. The outside of the house and the décor inside looked tired and in need of redecoration.

We were told that the people who lived at Brynsworthy had very different support needs, but all required high levels of staffing to enable them to take part in daily activities inside and outside the home. We were told that since the service had started to provide an ‘outreach’ enablement service staffing levels in the home were not always sufficient to meet the needs of each person living there. We were told that staff had been asked on occasions to leave the home to visit people who received enablement services. We were told that on the occasions this had happened insufficient staff remained on duty in the home to meet people’s individual needs.

The staff had a good understanding of peoples’ support needs. This was evident from the positive relationships, which had been formed between the staff and the people who lived in the home.