You are here

Archived: Broadoak Manor Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 2 July 2015

This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 06 May 2015.

Broadoak Manor is situated in a residential area of St Helens with access to local buses. There are four units on the one site providing care and support to people. The service is owned by BUPA who provide a variety of health and social care services throughout the country.

The service has a registered manager. 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.

At the time of our inspection there were 97 people living at the service.

We carried out an inspection of Broadoak Manor in August 2014 and found that the service was not meeting the regulations we inspected. We took action against the provider which included setting a timescale to make improvements in relation to three regulations. We gave compliance actions in relation to two other regulations.

We carried out a further inspection in December 2014 to check on the progress in relation to the regulations we set timescales for and found they had been met. During this inspection we followed up on the compliance actions we gave the provider in August 2014 and found they had been met.

People who used the service felt safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and had access to safeguarding procedures. Staff knew about the procedures in place to protect people from the risk of harm and they knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. The correct procedures had been followed when abuse was suspected or occurred.

People’s care and support needs were assessed and planned for. Regular reviews involving people who used the service and significant others ensured staff had all the information they needed to meet people’s current and changing needs. People’s care records accurately reflected their care and support needs and the care and support they had received.

People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Recruitment procedures were safe and staff had received ongoing training and support to ensure they carried out their role effectively.

Medicines were managed safely and processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could make decisions for themselves were protected. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about something, best interest meetings were held and documented in people’s care records.

People were offered a varied and healthy diet and people told us they had enough to eat and drink. People received the assistance they needed at meal times and those who were at risk of poor nourishment were closely monitored.

Staff were kind, caring and patient in their approach. Staff knew people well and formed good relationships with them and their family members.

The provider supported and encouraged learning and the staff team had the required skills and knowledge to care for the diverse and complex needs of the people who used the service.

People’s interests and hobbies were recorded and they were offered a range of indoor activities. However people commented that there had not been given the opportunity to access the community and it was something they would like to do.

People were made aware of how to make a complaint if required and complaints were listened to and acted upon in a timely way.

People described the manager as supportive and approachable and they felt that the service was well managed. There were systems in place to regularly check the quality of the service provided and to ensure improvements to the service were made.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 2 July 2015

The service was safe.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse and potential abuse.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Safe recruitment procedures were thorough and safe.

Medication was managed safely and people received their prescribed medication at the correct time.

Effective

Good

Updated 2 July 2015

The service was effective.

Staff received training and support which enabled them to carry out their roles effectively. Staff had good relationships with other professionals and requested advice and support from them in relation to people’s care and support.

Staff demonstrated they had an awareness and knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which meant they could support people to make choices and decisions where people did not have capacity.

People were provided with a choice of food and drinks and they received the support they needed to eat and drink.

Caring

Good

Updated 2 July 2015

The service was caring.

Staff took time to listen to people and people’s wishes were respected.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and their wishes were respected. Staff reassured and comforted people when they were upset or anxious.

Systems were in place to ensure staff had all the information they needed to meet people’s assessed needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 2 July 2015

The service was responsive.

Where possible people were asked about their care and how they wished it to be provided.

People had a care plan for their assessed needs and they received the right care and support.

People knew about how to complain and were confident about complaining if they needed to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 2 July 2015

The service was well led.

Staff were clear about the leadership of the service and their roles and responsibilities.

The provider had systems in place to assess and manage any risks to people’s health safety and welfare.

Staff were positive about the leadership of the service and felt able to raise any concerns they had with the registered manager.