You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Bybuckle Court. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 July 2017

Bybuckle Court is registered to provide accommodation for up to 17 older people. Providing care for people including those who live with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 16 people living at Bybuckle Court. This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 15 May 2017.

Bybuckle Court was inspected in March 2016 where we found one breach of regulation this was because the provider had not ensured care and treatment was provided in a safe way for people. The provider sent us an action plan telling us they would meet this breach of regulation by May 2016. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was meeting all regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Bybuckle Court had a registered manager who was in day to day charge of the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. People and staff told us they found the registered manager open and approachable. Staff were regularly supported through supervision and felt involved and listened to.

Staff felt that all necessary training was available. However, improvements were needed to ensure that all staff were up to date with their training requirements and that this was maintained at all times. Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs. Staff felt that they were able to provide care for people and people told us that when they requested help this was provided promptly.

Staff knew people well and spoke kindly to people, taking the time to stop to chat and support people. People’s privacy and dignity was supported and respected. Staff spoke positively about people, and showed concern for their wellbeing. Care was person centred.

Management had an understanding of mental capacity assessments (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). And how this needed to be assessed and reviewed. People were actively encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends and relatives or next of kin were involved in decisions when appropriate. People told us that staff provided all the care they needed and involved them in day to day choices and decisions.

Care plans were in place for people for identified care needs. These were supported by risk assessments when required. Risks were identified to help ensure people remained safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns. People had access to healthcare services to maintain good health. Some people had regular visits from community nurses and other health professionals.

Medicines policies and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Information regarding relevant health conditions was included in medicine care plans to ensure staff were aware of peoples health related conditions and medicines.

People were supported to eat and drink. Meal choices were provided and people spoke highly about the meals. Peoples special dietary needs were catered for to ensure peoples nutritional needs were met.

A programme of activity was provided. People spent their time meeting up and chatting to other people living at Bybuckle or participating in organised activities. Some people went out with their relatives and visitors.

There was a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Audit information was used to improve and develop the service. A complaints procedure was available for people to access if needed.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 July 2017

The service was safe.

People living at Bybuckle Court felt safe and supported.

Medicines policies and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Staff understood how to recognise and report safeguarding concerns.

Risks were identified to help ensure people remained safe.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people’s needs.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 6 July 2017

The service was not always effective.

Staff training records showed that not all staff had completed training or training updates in the last 12 months.

Staff felt supported and had regular supervision and appraisals.

People were actively involved in day to day choices and decisions.

Management had an understanding of mental capacity assessments (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were supported to eat and drink. Meal choices were provided and people spoke highly about the meals provided.

People had access to healthcare services to maintain good health.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 July 2017

Bybuckle Court was caring.

Staff knew people well and spoke kindly to people, taking the time to stop to chat and support people.

People were actively encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Relatives or next of kin were involved in decisions when appropriate.

People’s privacy and dignity was supported and respected. Staff spoke positively about people, and showed concern for people’s wellbeing.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 July 2017

The service was responsive.

Care was person centred. People were involved in reviews about how care was provided.

A programme of activity was provided. People were involved in choices and decisions made about their care and day to day activities.

A complaints procedure was available for people to access if needed.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 July 2017

Bybuckle Court was well led.

There was a registered manager in place who had a full overview of the day to day running of the home.

People and staff told us they found the manager open and approachable.

Staff were supported and felt involved and listened to.

There was a system in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Audit information was used to improve and develop the service.