We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bushmead Court Management Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Bushmead Court Management Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service: People were positive about the care they received at the service. One person told us, ‘‘This is a good place, run by good people. I would definitely recommend this place.’’
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. People were involved in their care planning and received personalised care which was tailored to their choices, preferences, likes and dislikes.
People were supported to remain independent in their own homes and their privacy and dignity was respected.
People were protected from harm and abuse in all areas of their care including the administration of medicines. We have made a recommendation to the service about best practice managing topical medicines.
Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and people received care from a consistent staff team.
Staff were trained and knowledgeable to carry out their job roles effectively.
People received support from healthcare professionals. Staff worked well with these professionals to ensure that people received the support they needed.
Complaints were addressed promptly and to people’s satisfaction.
People were supported with dignity and respect at the end of their lives.
People were positive about the manager and management team at the service.
Audits were completed and used to continually improve the service
The manager and staff team were passionate about providing high quality person centred care.
The previous registered manager had left their job role and had not de-registered with the Care Quality Commission. The current manager had started working at the service however had not registered with the Care Quality Commission. We therefore applied a limiter, which meant that Well-led was rated 'Requires Improvement'.
Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 01/03/2016)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. During this inspection we found evidence continued to support the rating of good. More information is in the full report.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
We carried out an announced inspection on 17 December 2015. The service provides care and support to people living in their own homes, within an extra care housing scheme and the care staff are based in the building. At the time of the inspection, 22 people were being supported by the service, some of whom were living with chronic health conditions, physical disabilities and dementia.
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.
There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised. There were systems in place to safeguard people from risk of possible harm and suitable equipment was in place so that people were supported safely.
The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there was sufficient numbers of staff to support people safely. Staff were regularly supported and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs. However, the manager needed to evidence more that staff received regular supervision.
Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to seek people’s consent prior to care being provided. Where people did not have capacity to consent to their care, this was provided in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
People were supported by caring, friendly and respectful staff. They were supported to access other health and social care services when required.
People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. They enjoyed happy and fulfilled lives because they had been given opportunities to pursue their hobbies and interests.
The provider had a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. They encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to improve the quality of the service.
The provider’s quality monitoring processes had been used effectively to drive continuous improvements.
We found that the service had reviewed its quality monitoring process. This meant that comments made by people were able to influence change and improvements to the service delivery.
We found that records relating to people's care, support and treatment were now regularly monitored to ensure that the care they received was safe and effective.
We found that people's needs had been assessed to ensure the care they received was safe and effective.
The service had procedures in place to ensure that people were protected against the risk of acquiring a health care associated infection. There were arrangements in place to ensure equipment used by people was properly maintained.
There were arrangements in place to ensure staff were supported to deliver care and support to people safely and to an appropriate standard. However, staff supervision was irregular.
We found the service did not have effective systems in place to assess and monitor the care provided to people. Therefore, it was not clear if people's opinions influenced change or improvements to the service delivery.
Those we spoke with told us they or their relatives felt safe being cared for by staff from Bushmead Court. They said the staff were friendly and professional and trained and experienced to carry out their roles. They said they felt the standard of care provided was very good.
We saw that individual care plans were kept with people in their own apartments and that the central office kept other records appropriately and securely.