Archived: New Bradley Hall

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People were cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment at the home had been well maintained and serviced regularly. There were enough staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home and a member of the management team was available on call in case of emergencies. A person who lived there told us that they liked everything and said "Staff do anything for you. I can eat anything I want, I am very happy here." A relative said "We wouldn't have them anywhere else."

Staff records demonstrated that mandatory training was up to date and that staff were trained sufficiently to meet the needs of people who lived there. Staff were trained in caring for people with dementia, challenging behaviour and in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had completed an appropriate referral for a person who lived there which had resulted in a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards order being authorised.

Is the service effective?

Relatives told us that they were happy with the care that was delivered and that people's needs were met. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard. Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living at the home. The home had provision to use agency staff who were trained to the same standard as permanent staff and who regularly worked at the home to maintain consistency.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. Staff took into account the complex needs of people when planning activities so that they could take part safely. A person who lived there told us that they felt safe and cared for in the home. Staff said that they were very happy with the level of professional and emotional support they received from the management team.

Is the service responsive?

People's needs had been assessed before they moved into the home. Records confirmed people's preferences and interests and 'Who Am I?' records were used to help staff understand each person's personality and emotional state. People had access to activities that were important to them and were supported to maintain relationships with their friends and relatives.

Is the service well led?

Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and robust quality assurance processes were in place. A relative told us that the manager had an open-door policy and that they were always willing to talk. Food was prepared freshly on site by catering staff who were trained to be able to meet the complex nutritional needs of people. Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities and that management support was of a high standard and helped them to do their job effectively.

We spoke with two people, one relative, the acting manager and three staff members.

We saw that care plans were up to date and contained relevant information that allowed staff to provide care and support suitable for people's needs. Staff told us that was the case.

One person we spoke with said, 'The care is excellent.' A relative said, 'The carers are really good.'

Training records were accurate and up to date. Staff were having regular supervison sessions where their training needs were being discussed and passed on to the acting manager to book the necessary courses.

People told us that they felt involved in the planning of their care. A relative said, 'They ask me everything'.

People told us they were very satisfied with the service they received at the home. They all said that their needs were being met. Relatives told us they were very satisfied with the care provided. Throughout the inspection, we found that staff treated people with respect and supported them in a friendly, engaging manner.

Most of the staff had been trained in safeguarding and the policy and procedure were readily accessible. We saw that a number of staff did their training some time ago.

People living at the home were complimentary about the staff who cared for and supported them. One person said, "The staff are excellent".

None of the people we spoke with had any complaints. People told us they would feel confident to raise a complaint if they needed to.

We found that the quality and accuracy of records held by the home was not always robust. Poor record keeping could lead to people not getting the care and support they needed.