Archived: Bramble Brook House

Bramble Brook House provides residential care for up to 40 older people, who may have a physical disability, or sensory impairment. There are bedrooms on the ground and first floors. There were 19 people living at the service at the time of our inspection.

There was a registered manager in post. The home is required to have 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and were responsive to their needs. People were protected against the risk of abuse, as checks were made to confirm staff were of good character to work with people. Sufficient staff were available to meet people's diverse needs.

Risk assessments and care plans had been developed with the involvement of people and their representatives. Staff had the relevant information on how to minimise identified risks to ensure people were supported in a safe way.

People were supported to take their medicine as and when needed, for example staff asked people if they were ready to take their medicines. However medicine storage was not always effective and self-medicating procedures were not clear.

Staff received training to meet the needs of people living at the service and received supervision, to support and develop their skills.

The registered manager and staff knew about people’s individual capacity to make decisions and supported people to make their own decisions. People’s needs and preferences were met when they were supported with their dietary needs. People had access to health support; referrals were made to relevant health care professionals when required.

People told us staff were caring and kind and that they had confidence in them to provide the support they needed. The culture of the home empowered people to maintain their dignity and privacy. Staff understood the needs and preferences of the people they supported and worked in partnership with them and their representatives.

People had opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests and their lifestyle choices were respected by staff.

People and their representatives knew how to make a complaint and were confident that their complaint would be fully investigated and action taken if necessary.

Arrangements were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service, so that actions could be put in place to drive improvement. However the providers internal audit did not pick up the issues we identified. The management of the service were open and transparent. Positive communication was encouraged and people’s feedback was sought by the registered manager to further develop the service and drive improvement.

People confirmed that they felt safe using the service and all the relatives we spoke with told us they had no worries about the way care was provided. We found staff knew how to recognise abuse and were familiar with reporting procedures.

We received information in January 2014 that suggested staff did not use proper moving and handling procedures when assisting people to move. Observation during this inspection visit did not support this. People told us they were assisted properly and we saw staff using correct procedures.

We found there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs and staff training was up to date. It covered essential health and safety courses but there was a lack of courses on care related subjects. This meant there was the potential for staff not to have relevant guidance and information for their role.

We saw that the provider had a system for monitoring the quality of the service that included a range of audits and obtaining feedback from service users and relatives.

We found that peoples care records were comprehensive and reflected the care received by people, but the records were not stored securely. We also found that people were not always protected against the risks associated with unsafe management of medicines and the providers' systems for identifying, assessing and managing risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others were not effective.