You are here

Archived: Berkeley Court Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 21 May 2016

This inspection took place on 24 February 2016. At the last inspection in July 2015 we rated the service as requires improvement. We found the provider was breaching two regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014. People were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines and the provider did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service delivery. At this inspection we found the registered provider had taken action in both areas.

Berkeley Court provides care and support for up to 78 older people. At the time of our inspection there were 74 people using the service. The accommodation for people is arranged over three floors. There are two units per floor. Each unit has single bedrooms which have en-suite facilities. There are communal bathrooms and toilets throughout the home. There are open plan communal lounges and dining rooms on each of the units.

The registered provider had a recruitment procedures were in place. However we found the registered provider did not always follow their policy and procedures. We found one person’s reference in their file did not match the references on their application form or previous employment history on their application form

The service had a registered manager in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

When we looked in staff files we found evidence that showed some staff had not received individual supervision. We also found staff annual appraisals had not taken place. This meant staff were not appropriately supported in relation to their roles and responsibilities which may affect the delivery of care.

Records we looked at showed staff training was not fully up to date. This meant staff were at risk of not being able to perform their duties safely or appropriately.

People who used the service told us they were happy living at the service. They said they felt safe and staff treated them well. Staff told us they respected people’s choice and treated them with dignity and respect.

Care records did not show how people who used the service were involved in the planning their care and there were also limited ends of life care plans. Relatives told us they were consulted about their family member’s care.

.

People were encouraged to maintain good health and received the support they needed to do this. Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines when they needed it. People’s views on food and menus in the home were good. We saw people received regular drinks and snacks to make sure their nutrition and hydration needs were met.

People who used the service were involved in a wide range of activities within the home. Most people we spoke with said they enjoyed these.

Staff spoke positively about the registered manager of the home saying they were approachable. The home had systems in place to deal with concerns and complaints, which included providing people with information about the complaints process. Information on how to complain was clearly displayed in the home, giving people the contact details they needed if they wished to do so.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service; which included regular audits of the home.

Breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 were found during this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 May 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

We found the registered provider did not always follow their recruitment policy and procedures.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to abuse appropriately. They could describe the different types of abuse.

Arrangements were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 21 May 2016

The service was not always effective.

We found evidence some staff had not received supervision and annual appraisal. We also found some staff mandatory training needed updating.

We found the service was meeting the legal requirements relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. (MCA)

People�s views on the meals in the home were good.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 May 2016

The service was caring.

Staff understood how to treat people with dignity and respect and they were confident people received good quality care.

Staff took time to explain choices and gave people time to make decisions.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 21 May 2016

The service was not always responsive

Care records did not show how people who used the service were involved in the planning their care and there were also limited ends of life care plans. Some care plans needed more detail about the person�s preferences. Relatives told us they were consulted about their family member�s care.

There were systems in place to ensure complaints and concerns were fully investigated.

People were provided with a range of activity within the home.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 May 2016

The service was well-led.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality and safety of the service. The registered manager was made aware improvements were required to staff supervision and appraisal.

Staff said they felt well supported and found the registered manager approachable.

Records showed people who used the service were asked for their views on the quality of care provided.