Archived: Broadacres Care Home

Updated 23 March 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection was unannounced, which meant that the home’s management, staff and people using the service did not know the inspection was going to take place. The inspection visit took place on the 15th February 2017. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

During the inspection we checked records relating to the management of the home, team meeting minutes, training records, medication records and records of quality and monitoring audits carried out by the home’s management team and senior managers. We spoke with people using the service, staff and the management team.

We observed care taking place in the home, and observed staff undertaking various activities, including supporting people to make decisions and engage in activities, dealing with medication and using specific pieces of equipment to support people’s mobility. We observed a mealtime taking place in the home. In addition to this, we undertook a Short Observation Framework for Inspection (SOFI) SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Before the inspection, we reviewed records we hold about the provider and the location, including notifications that the provider had submitted to us, as required by law, to tell us about certain incidents within the home. We also spoke with the local authority and gained their feedback about the home. Prior to the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This was returned in a timely manner prior to the inspection

Updated 23 March 2017

The inspection was unannounced, and took place on 15th February 2017. The home was last inspected in December 2015, where concerns were identified in relation to governance, safety and a failure to make required notifications to CQC. The home was rated “requires improvement” at that inspection.

Broadacres is a 50 bed service providing residential care to older people with a range of support needs including dementia. It is divided into two separate units, Rosehill and Clifton. AT the time of the inspection there were 28 people using the service.

The home is located in the Parkgate suburb of Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is close to the town centre and public transport links.

The service did not have registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The previous registered manager had left their post and a new manager had been appointed. They were in the process of applying to register with CQC.

We found that staff went about their day to day duties treating people with respect and dignity. We observed a genuine warmth when staff spoke with people and staff told us that treating people with respect was the most important part of their job.

The home environment was designed to meet the needs of people living with dementia, and we saw that further improvements were underway. The home had an activities coordinator who devised a varied activities programme, including activities both within the home and within the local community.

Medicines were stored and handled safely, although we noted some areas for improvement, which the provider addressed immediately during the inspection.

Where people were at risk of harm, or presented a risk to others, there were appropriate risk assessments in place to ensure staff kept people safe.

Recruitment procedures were sufficiently robust to ensure people’s safety.

We looked at the arrangements for complying with the Mental Capacity Act, and found that although on the whole this was adhered to, improvements were required in the way consent was obtained and recorded.

Mealtimes were observed to be comfortable and pleasant experiences for people. People told us the food available was always good.

The management team were accessible and were familiar to people using the service. The provider had a system in place for auditing the quality of the service, and for obtaining and acting on feedback from people using the service and their friends and relatives.