You are here


Review carried out on 9 September 2021

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about 30 Broad Lane on 9 September 2021. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.

This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.

If you have concerns about 30 Broad Lane, you can give feedback on this service.

Inspection carried out on 13 November 2017

During a routine inspection

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 13 November 2017.

30 Broad Lane is a residential care home for a maximum of six people with learning disabilities and associated needs. Some people within the home had difficulties that included mobility issues. At the point of inspection, the service had five female residents. The service is provided to people across two floors, with a lift to enable people to access both floors.

At the last inspection of September 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection the rating remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

A registered manager was 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.

The service remained safe. Sufficient staff were deployed to manage people’s needs, and enable them to engage in activities of their choice, through appropriate risk management. Staff knew how to safeguard people from abuse and were aware of the protocols to follow should they have concerns. Staff reported that they would not hesitate to whistle-blow if the need arose. Medicines were managed safely. Staff were competency checked annually and medicines audits were completed monthly to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

The service remained effective. Support was delivered by a highly trained staff team, who were able to respond appropriately to people’s changing needs. Staff were supervised and supported by an effective manager, who ensured health professionals were engaged as required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The service remained caring. Staff were polite, respectful and ensured they maintained people’s dignity when supporting them. They encouraged open communication and worked on motivating people to increase their independence.

The service continued to be well-led. The registered manager was proactive, approachable and transparent in her practice. She welcomed comments and encouraged better practice. All audits were maintained, ensuring the registered manager had a full overview of the service.

Inspection carried out on 22 September 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 22 September 2015, and was unannounced.

30 Broad lane is a care home which offers accommodation for people who require personal care. Although registered to provide a facility for up to six people with a primary diagnosis of Learning Disabilities, the location currently has four people using the service.

The home is required to have a registered manager. The manager has been in post since October 2013, and has completed registration with the CQC. 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.

Staff knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns promptly through procedures that were made available to them. Systems and processes were in place to recruit staff who were suitable to work in the service and to protect people against the risk of abuse. There were sufficient numbers of suitably trained and experienced staff to ensure people’s needs were met.

We observed good caring practice by the staff. Relatives of people using the service said they were very happy with the support and care provided. People and where appropriate their relatives confirmed they were fully involved in the planning and review of their care. Care plans focussed on the individual and recorded their personal preferences well. They reflected people’s needs, and detailed risks that were specific to the person, with guidance on how to manage them effectively.

People told us communication with the service was good and they felt listened to. All relatives spoken with said they thought people were treated with respect, preserving their dignity at all times.

People were supported with their medicines by suitably trained, qualified and experienced staff. Medicines were managed safely and securely. Where a person required PRN medicine (used on an as need basis), guidance was available for staff to ensure this was appropriately administered. This was reflected with staff describing the protocol, and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) sheets showed proportionate usage.

People who could not make specific decisions for themselves had their legal rights protected. People’s care plans showed that when decisions had been made about their care, where they lacked capacity, these had been made in the person’s best interests. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The DoLS provide legal protection for vulnerable people who are, or may become, deprived of their liberty.

People received care and support from staff who had the appropriate skills and knowledge to care for them. All staff received comprehensive induction, training and support from experienced members of staff. They felt supported by the registered manager and said they were listened to if they raised concerns.

The quality of the service was monitored regularly by the provider, and the Operations Manager. A thorough quality assurance audit was completed quarterly with an action plan being generated, and followed up on during identified timescales. Feedback was encouraged from people, visitors and stakeholders and used to improve and make changes to the service.

Inspection carried out on 19 July 2013

During a routine inspection

At the time of our inspection there were five people living at 30 Broad Lane.

People living in the home had complex needs and were not able to tell us what they thought about the care and support provided.

We were able to observe staff members being responsive to the needs of the individuals in a respectful and supportive way that was in keeping with guidance in their care and support plan. We observed people being supported by staff to access different areas of their home which included the kitchen or the garden area.

The provider and staff were aware of their responsibilities regarding protecting people from abuse.

We found that the home trained staff correctly before they undertook any responsibility for administering medication.

Staff we spoke with told us that they received planned supervision and felt supported by the team and manager. They told us that they had access to training opportunities which were relevant to their role. They also said that there were always adequate numbers of staff available on each shift.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and evaluate the quality of services provided. Staff and people living in the home were able to express their opinions.

Inspection carried out on 13 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We spoke with two relatives of people who lived in the home and used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us to understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

Relatives of the people who lived in the home told us that staff made sure that people�s

privacy and dignity was respected, as much as possible. All five people who lived in the home indicated they were happy there. Relatives told us that their family members were well cared for and seemed to be happy living in the home. Relatives told us that staff were kind and patient and that they had very confidence that their family members were safe in the home. Relatives told us that the home responded quickly to any changes in people�s behaviour that could show that they were not happy or not well.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)