Archived: Bushey House Beaumont DCA

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this announced inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. However, our rating for the question ‘is the service has well-led’ has deteriorated to Requires Improvement.

There was no registered manager in post at the time of this inspection. 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. A new manager had been appointed but they had yet to apply to the CQC for registration as the manager.

Audit and governance systems were in place but not effectively operated to identify and drive forward any improvements required. Staff had not been consistently supported by an effective management team. People were aware of how to make a complaint or raise a concern, however some of these had not been responded to promptly.

People were supported by staff who knew how to keep people safe from harm. Risk assessments were in place to enable staff to safely support and monitor people’s health and welfare.

Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to ensure people’s needs were met. Staff had been recruited safely prior to working at the service. People’s medicines were administered as prescribed and managed safely. Systems were in place to maintain infection prevention and control.

Staff were trained to meet people’s care and support needs. People were supported with their eating and drinking to promote their well-being. Staff supported people to access external healthcare services. Staff worked with other organisations to help ensure that people's care was coordinated.

People received a caring service by staff who knew them well. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained by staff. People were involved in their care decisions and staff promoted people’s independence as far as practicable. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

Peoples records were well maintained and updated when required. Notifications required to be made about significant events were submitted when required.

People we spoke with were all happy with the service they had received. One person we spoke with said 'it's so nice here' and 'staff sit and have a cup of tea with me in my flat, which is very nice'. We saw that care plans were person centred and held details on how people wanted to be supported and at what time they wanted to be supported.

Staff we spoke with were very complementary about the training they had received. We saw evidence that staff had all received regular supervision and an annual appraisal. Minutes from staff meetings showed that staff were kept informed on changes that affected the agency.

The agency had a complaints policy and procedure in place and people were all provided with a copy. People we spoke with told us that they had been very happy with the service and had not had any reasons to complain.

We saw that records were regularly reviewed and updates and were securely stored. We saw that records kept by the agency were stored in a way that allowed them to be accessed quickly.