You are here

Archived: Bracken House

The provider of this service changed - see new profile


Inspection carried out on 15 May 2013

During a routine inspection

At our last visit to Bracken House we found that the service was not compliant in two key outcome areas. We looked at these outcomes as part of this inspection visit. We found that improvements had been made and the service was compliant in both outcome areas.

We found that reviews had taken place to ensure that appropriate procedures were followed when �Do Not Attempt to Resuscitate� (DNAR) orders were put in place. We saw that the records related to the end of life care of a person had been re-instated following our last visit. The records had been updated to ensure that they reflected the care provided by staff working at the home. We spoke with two care staff who demonstrated they were aware of people's care and support needs.

We were not able to speak in depth with all the people who used the service because of their mental health condition. To help us obtain a view of people�s experiences we observed people�s care, read people�s care records and spoke with staff at our visit. We saw that staff sat with people when speaking with them, listening and responding to their needs and requests in a calm and reassuring manner. Information from one person who lived at the home told us, �They (staff) are all very kind�.

We found that medication audit systems at the home had been reviewed to ensure people received their medicines safely.

We saw that recruitment procedures in place ensured that people living at the home were supported by appropriate staff.

Inspection carried out on 15 January 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our visit to Bracken House we spoke with five of the people who lived there, three visiting relatives, the home manager, the deputy manager and the care staff on duty. The visit was unannounced so that no one living or working in the home knew we were coming.

We received positive comments about the staff team from people that lived at the home and visiting relatives. One relative told us, �I have to say I can�t praise them enough�. One person that lived in the home told us, �The staff are very kind�.

People told us that they felt safe in the home and were able to report any concerns they had. Two people told us, �They (staff) always take the time to listen to us�. People told us that they were asked for their views on the service the home provided.

We found that appropriate procedures had not been followed when �Do Not Attempt to Resuscitate� orders had been put in place. For example, there was no evidence to show what or if discussions had taken place with the people involved.

We found that information in the care records for one of the people whose care we looked at did not reflect the care we observed care staff provide. Our discussions with the manager and care staff told us that the person�s condition had changed. The manager and her deputy acknowledged that care plans were not in place for this person and daily records had not been maintained to confirm the care that had been delivered.

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