The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Brandon Park Residential and Nursing Home

Brandon Country Park, Bury Road, Brandon, Suffolk, IP27 0SU (01842) 812400

Provided and run by:
Bupa Care Homes (CFChomes) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

02/04/2014

During a routine inspection

Brandon Park Residential and Nursing Home is a care home providing short and long-term care, offering nursing, palliative, convalescence and respite care, as well as care for those diagnosed with Parkinson’s and dementia.

The service can accommodate up to 55 people. There were 25 people in residence when we visited. This was because at our previous inspections of the service on 13 June, 22 August and 25 November 2013 we identified concerns in relation to the standards of care and welfare of people who used the service. We also found that the provider did not have systems in place that assessed and monitored the quality of the service and which protected people from the risk of unsafe care and treatment. We took action against the provider and asked them to tell us what action they would take to put things right. As part of their action plan the provider agreed to voluntary suspend new admissions to the service.

At this inspection we identified further shortfalls which breached two of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

The first breach related to the provider not having clear systems in place that assessed and monitored staffing levels and managed short notice absences. This resulted in the provider not ensuring there were sufficient staff on duty at all times.

The second breach related to people not experiencing care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. This was evidenced at the midday meal which was observed to not be a sociable experience. This was due to staff moving between dining rooms resulting in some people not receiving the support they needed to eat their meal. Additionally the records we looked at showed that not all staff had received training that ensured they were fully able to communicate with people living with dementia and understood their individualised needs.

The service has not had a registered manager in post since November 2013. The interim manager told us that they were applying to CQC to be the registered manager until a new permanent manager was recruited. Generally we found the service had improved under the leadership of the interim manager since our last inspections.

People told us that they felt safe living in the service and that staff respected their privacy and dignity at all times. They were happy with their care and said that staff were kind, caring and considerate.

The service had arrangements in place to keep people safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the procedures to take when safeguarding concerns were raised with them. People’s care records showed that staff were following effective risk management plans to protect people from the risks of harm. Appropriate arrangements were in place that ensured people who used the service received their medicines, as prescribed. Records showed that incidents and accidents that occurred in the service were fully investigated and action was taken to ensure they were less likely to happen again. Routine health and safety checks were being carried out to ensure that the environment and equipment were safe and well maintained.

People’s needs were assessed and their care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual needs.

We saw that where a person lacked capacity to make decisions about their end of life care, a best interests meeting had been held in accordance with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. We saw that people, and those that mattered to them, had been involved in the planning for their end of life care, so that their final wishes would be respected at the time of their death.

The service was applying the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) appropriately. These safeguards protect the rights of adults using services by ensuring that if there are restrictions on their freedom and liberty these are assessed by professionals who are trained to assess whether the restriction is needed. Whilst no applications have needed to be submitted by the home, proper policies and procedures were in place, the manager understood when an application should be made.

25 November 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Whilst we found some evidence of improvement since our last inspection with regard to ensuring people were being appropriately supported. We remained concerned in relation to the service's management of wound care and prevention of pressure ulcer development.

We saw that some of the people we spoke with found that the quality of the service had improved since our previous visit. We spoke with seven people who used the service. One person told us, 'I have no complaints; they can spend more time with me now.' Another person told us, 'The staff seem happier, that makes things better.' Another person told us, 'I have not been here long but I think it is quite good.'

We found that the management of the home was now effectively monitoring the quality of the service it provided because auditing systems were now effective in identifying concerns that required improvement.

22 August 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We inspected Brandon Park on 13 June 2013 and found that improvement was required in several areas. We therefore made 'compliance actions' which required the provider to create an action plan setting out how they were going to address the issues within a reasonable time frame. We received this action plan and returned with three inspectors and an Expert by Experience to re-inspect the service on 22 August 2013. Whilst we found some evidence of improvement with regard to staff training we remained concerned in relation to the service's procedures for establishing people's consent to care and treatment, staffing levels, record keeping and general standards of care and welfare. We saw that some of the people we spoke with were experiencing a poor quality of service.

We found that the management of the home was not effectively monitoring the quality of the service it provided because auditing systems were not effective and did not protect people from the risk of unsafe care and treatment. We spoke with eight people who used the service, eight members of staff, two relatives and the local GP. People made comments to us about the leadership of the service. These included "There's nobody in charge", "Nobody oversees the whole thing" and "Every time we go down to the office there's a different person behind the desk". On the day of our inspection the manager, deputy manager, relief manager and regional manager were unavailable and nursing staff were in charge when we arrived.

13 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with seven people who used the service, two relatives and six members of staff. Most people told us they were happy with their care. People told us they enjoyed the library van coming and enjoyed joining in with the organised activities. One person said "The carers are excellent" and another person told us "Whatever you want to do you can". Other people told us that there were not always enough staff and that they sometimes had to wait a long time for help. We found that some people did not go out much and spent a lot of time in their rooms. We were concerned about how the service was caring for some people.

We asked about the food. Everyone we spoke with about the food said it was very good. One person said "The food is excellent. Not all homes are as good. You can choose what you want".

We found concerns in relation to establishing people's consent to care and treatment, the management of medicines, infection control, staffing levels, record keeping and general care and welfare.

21 September 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they liked living at Brandon Park and that staff were supportive and caring. People told us that staff came quickly when they called for help. One person said "You can please yourself here, the staff are grand." We found that care was provided according to people's assessed needs and people were asked for their views about the service. We found that staff were recruited appropriately, well trained and had skills required to provide safe care. The provider had effective systems to monitor the quality of the service.

11 April 2011 and 23 September 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they found the home comfortable and that they liked living there. They said the food was good and that staff made an extra effort if people were having visitors for dinner, to make it feel like a special occasion.

People told us that the staff were respectful, caring and were always happy to help. They also told us that they liked the new manager, who listened to what they had to say.