You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 October 2019

About the service

Bourne Hill Care Home is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for people living with autism and learning disabilities.

Bourne Hill accommodates up to five people in one adapted building. At the time of the inspection there was four people living at the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.

The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We observed throughout the inspection that people were supported by staff who were kind, caring and respectful in their approach.

People knew the staff team that supported them and were observed to be at ease and reassured in their presence.

Care staff knew people well. We saw staff communicate and respond to people using ways and methods which people understood, especially where some people were non-verbal or presented with behaviours that challenged.

Relatives complimented the ways in which their relative was supported by the service and were re-assured that their relative was safe whilst in the care of Bourne Hill Care Home.

People were supported and encouraged to access the community, participate in activities as well as be involved with daily living tasks where possible. However, we found that the service did not always focus or take a creative approach on activities that took into consideration people’s hobbies and interests.

Risk assessments in place were comprehensive and person centred. Assessments provided clear guidance and information to care staff on how to minimise identified risks and keep people safe.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. Policies in place supported this.

All staff recruited to work at Bourne Hill Care Home had been assessed as safe to work with vulnerable people. Staffing levels were enough to ensure that people’s needs were met.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Care plans were person centred and gave comprehensive information about the person, their needs and how they wished to be supported.

People were appropriately supported with their meals. Identified, specific dietary requirements had been recorded in people’s care plans. Care staff knew about people’s specialist needs and supported them accordingly.

Care staff told us that they were supported well in their roles. Records confirmed that they received regular training, supervision and annual a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 October 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 October 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 October 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 October 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 October 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.