You are here

Archived: The Borrins Care Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

We are carrying out a review of quality at The Borrins Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 18 October 2016

The inspection took place on 10 August 2016 and was unannounced.

The Borrins Care Home has a total of 25 beds and is part of BUPA Care Homes (GL) Limited, it provides accommodation and personal care services for older people. The home is located in a residential area of Baildon close to the shops and other amenities.

The home had a registered manager in post at the time of the 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.

The home had a safeguarding policy in place which made staff aware of their roles and responsibilities. We found staff knew and understood how to protect people from abuse and harm and what might constitute abuse.

We found the service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own.

We saw staff were kind and caring toward the people they supported and people were able to participate in a range of social and leisure activities both within the home and the wider community.

We found staff received appropriate levels of training and supervision to carry out their roles effectively and in people’s best interest.

We saw arrangements were in place that made sure people's health needs were met. For example, people had access to the full range of NHS services. This included GPs, hospital consultants, community health nurses, opticians, chiropodists and dentists.

We found that although medication policies and procedures were in place and staff received appropriate training medicines were not always administered safely or as prescribed.

We found people’s needs were assessed and care plans had been put in place to meet their assessed needs although they did not always reflect the care and treatment people actually received.

We saw there was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care, support or treatment they received.

We found although there was a quality assurance monitoring system in place it had not identified the shortfalls in the service highlighted above and in the body of this report.

We identified two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

The people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home and staff knew how to recognise and respond to allegation of possible abuse correctly.

We found that although medication policies and procedures were in place medicines were not always administered as prescribed.

Assessments were undertaken in relation to potential risks to people who used the service and staff and risk assessments were in place to manage these risks.

There was a staff recruitment and selection procedure in place and newly appointed staff were not allowed to work until all relevant checks had been completed and references received.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was effective.

The service was working in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This helped to make sure people’s rights were protected.

People were supported to have an adequate dietary intake and their preferences were catered for.

We saw people had access to the full range of NHS services and staff worked closely with community based healthcare professionals in specific areas of people’s care.

Staff received the training and support they required to fulfil their roles and meet people’s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was caring.

Care and support was provided in a caring and respectful way.

People’s right to privacy, dignity and independence was respected and valued.

Wherever possible people were involved in reviewing their care needs and were able to express their views about they wanted their care and support to be delivered.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

Care plans were in place outlining the care and support people required. However, they did not always provide staff with up to date and accurate information.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, interests and preferences and people were able to participate a range of meaningful social and leisure activities.

There was a clear complaints procedure and people who used the service knew how to make a complaint if they needed to.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 18 October 2016

The service was not consistently well-led

There was a quality assurance monitoring system in place designed to continually monitor and identify shortfalls in the service and any areas of non-compliance with current regulations.

However, we found some of the shortfalls highlighted in the body of the report had not been identified through the quality assurance process.

Feedback about the registered manager was positive. They were open and transparent and demonstrated a commitment to improving the quality of services provided.