The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Burnham

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

19 Julian Road, Folkestone, Kent, CT19 5HW (01303) 221335

Provided and run by:
M N P Complete Care Group

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

19 April 2016

During a routine inspection

We carried out this unannounced inspection on 19 April 2016. Burnham is a service for up to five people with physical disabilities. At the time of inspection there were four people living in the service. At a previous inspection on 6 January 2015 we found the provider was not meeting all the requirements of the legislation in respect of fire evacuation arrangements, record keeping and quality monitoring; we asked the provider to write and tell us what action they were going to take to address the specific shortfalls identified which they had done.

.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

At this inspection we found that staff recruitment was conducted safely but important information the service is required to keep in respect of staff recruitment and the checks made had not been retained.

People were protected from harm because there were enough staff available to support them both in the service and when out in the community. Staff were trained to meet people’s needs and they discussed their performance during one to one meetings and discussions with the registered manager.

Staff felt listened to and supported and had regular staff meetings; they were provided with regular opportunities to discuss their training and development with the registered manager. Not everyone we met was able to verbally express their views but through gestures and signs and those that could tell us people showed that they were happy living in the service and felt well supported by staff. Staff showed affection and positive engagement with the people they supported. Staff spent time with people to understand their experiences of support and if changes were needed. Relatives told us that they were kept informed about their relative’s welfare and were invited to contribute their views at placement reviews when they attended. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and supported them to access routine and specialist health when this was needed.

People were given individual support to participate in their own interests and hobbies. Risk assessments were completed for each person regarding the support they needed with their environment and the activities they participated in, this helped staff to understand how to protect them from harm, these were kept updated or amended whenever changes occurred. Accidents and incidents were monitored by the provider to see where improvements could be made to prevent future occurrence. Individualised guidance was available to staff to help them understand how to work positively with people whose behaviour could be challenging to others.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The provider understood when an application should be made and the service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People were supported by staff who had been trained to recognise and act on any suspicion of abuse and understood the whistleblowing policy and their responsibilities to report concerns. Guidance was available to staff in the event of emergency events so they knew who to contact and what action to take to protect people and keep them safe. People, staff and relatives were confident they could raise any concerns with the registered manager or outside agencies if this was needed.

People lived in a well maintained environment that was decorated and furnished to a high standard, it was visibly clean and tidy and people were enabled with staff support to personalise their own personal space. Equipment checks and servicing were regularly carried out to ensure the premises and equipment used was safe. Fire detection and alarm systems were maintained; staff understood how to protect people in the event of a fire as they had undertaken fire training and took part in practice drills.

People ate a varied diet and were consulted about the development of menus which took account of their personal preferences. Medicines were managed safely by trained staff. People and their relatives were routinely asked to comment about the service and action was taken to address any areas for improvement. A new quality assurance system had been implemented to enable the provider and registered manager to assess and monitor the quality of service delivery to ensure standards were maintained.

We have made one recommendation:

We recommend that the provider monitors whether all staff are participating in a minimum of two fire drills annually in accordance with recommendations for staff contained in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

6 January 2015

During a routine inspection

We undertook an unannounced inspection of this service on 6 January 2015. We last inspected this home in December 2013 and found no concerns.

Burnham is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to five people with physical disabilities. In the main part of the house accommodation is arranged over two floors for four people in single rooms which are large and spacious, a fifth person occupies a small bedsit attached to the house with a separate entrance.

The premises were well maintained and people were provided with the necessary aids and adaptations to suit their individual requirements. There is a lounge and dining area for people to use and relax in. There is a large garden to the rear of the home that is accessible.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People told us that living in the home for them was ok and they were happy. Relatives we contacted said they were made welcome and spoke positively about the delivery of care, the attitude of staff, their professionalism and the overall culture of the home. A social care professional told us that they found the home to be safe and caring, they said the home was responsive to their clients’ needs and open to any suggestions for improvement around this.

Quality assurance systems were in place but these did not adequately monitor the delivery of care to ensure this was provided to a consistently high standard. Good staff practice was not always supported by accurate records or appropriate guidance.

Individual evacuation plans were in place for each person that took account of their specific needs and how this would affect their evacuation. One person’s plan did not address how staff would evacuate them in the event of a fire from an upstairs room without appropriate evacuation equipment to help and in accordance with their responsibilities under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. An emergency plan was in place that made clear to staff in what circumstances the plan would be used and directed staff to a safe meeting place, staff knew where to assemble but this information was incorrectly recorded in the emergency procedure, and staff were unclear what arrangements were in place in the event that people could not return to the home.

We checked the arrangements for the receipt, storage, administration and recording of medicines which were appropriate. Staff worked to an agreed process for disposal of medicines that were opened but which people refused to take or had been dropped, but the process was not made clear in the medicines policy, and this could pose a risk of medicines not being disposed of appropriately if there was a change in staff.

We saw that there were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm, or unlawful or excessive restraint. This was because the provider had ensured staff had the appropriate knowledge and skills to respond appropriately to people who communicated through their behaviour and actions.

The Registered Manager had a good understanding of mental capacity, had been trained to understand when applications for deprivation of Liberty should be made, and how to submit one. This meant that people were safeguarded and their human rights respected. We found the service was meeting the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were cared for and supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Safe recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. People were provided with a choice of healthy food and drink ensuring their nutritional needs were met. People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made. Appropriate arrangements were in place for the management of medicines.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was tailored to meet their individual needs ensuring their privacy and dignity was maintained. Risks were identified and strategies implemented to reduce the level of risk. Staff knew people well and had good relationships with them and their relatives; the atmosphere was calm and relaxed.

People were encouraged to make use of the community either independently or with staff support to do activities or visit places that interested them, rather than have structured activities in the home.

Relatives and staff spoke positively about the openness and leadership of the home. Staff told us that they felt well supported by their manager and were provided with opportunities to express their views and raise issues. They understood their responsibilities for reporting concerns they might have and felt confident of doing this.

We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which correspond to the Health and Social Care Act (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

6 December 2013

During a routine inspection

There were five people living at Burnham at the time of our inspection. People we spoke with did not have any concerns about living at the service. We also looked around the service and observed how staff interacted with people. This helped us to understand the experiences of people who were not able to speak to us.

People told us they were pleased with the care and support provided and that it met their needs and expectation. People felt safe and had confidence in the staff who supported them. One person told us 'The staff and the care is great, I am well looked after'. Other people indicated to us, through thumbs up hand signals, that they were happy with the care provided.

We spoke with a visitor to the service who was complementary of the care and support provided. They told us 'It is a good team of staff, (relatives name) is looked after very well. There is good communication here'.

We looked at people's care plans and found they had been reviewed when needed. People had consented to care and treatment and processes were in place in the event that they could not.

We looked at the management and administration of medicines. People received the medicine they required when they needed it. However, we have made some comments to the provider about the storage of medicines that need to be addressed.

Staff recruitment records confirmed that appropriate processes had been followed. Checks made sure that the staff employed were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

We saw that there was an accessible and effective complaints process in place.

19 March 2013

During a routine inspection

There were five people living there when we visited. We spoke with four people, four members of staff and the manager. Due to their needs, some people were unable to communicate verbally with us their experiences of living there. So, we spent time observing how staff supported and interacted with people during the day.

The people living there could make choices about their lives. We observed people making choices about what time they got up, what they did and where they spent their time. One person told us they were happy living at the home and had what they needed in their bedroom.

We saw that people were encouraged to do things for themselves so promoting their independence skills and self esteem.

We saw that people were supported to have regular health checks to ensure their well being. Other professionals were involved in people's care and staff followed their advice to help to meet people's needs.

Systems were in place to ensure that people were safeguarded from harm. We saw that people were comfortable in the company of staff.

Staff were well supported and had the training they needed so they could support the people living there.

People were asked for their views about the home and these were listened to. Audits were completed and action taken where needed to make improvements.