Archived: Baily House

Baily House is a ‘care home’ offering accommodation to a maximum of 66 people. There were 64 people living at the service on the day of our inspection. The accommodation comprises of three floors, each has communal areas for dining and relaxing. Bedrooms have ensuites.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ Measures were in place for visitors which included staff taking their temperature and face coverings provided.

¿ Visitors were able to book an appointment to see people using the outside space. Gazebos provided cover for people to sit and spend time together. Video calls had been used to keep people in touch with family if they could not visit. Activities had been altered to make them safer, such as a concert in the carpark and a summer fayre.

¿ Some staff had been supported to shield and had returned to work with supervision and planning and roles were reviewed to reduce the risks to staff.

¿ Where social distancing was difficult to achieve for people. Staff supported people with extra handwashing, hand sanitiser and re-directing people. People were supported to wear their own facemasks and isolate in their bedrooms if they wished. Picture books and posters had been used to explain the changes in relation to covid 19 and the new practices to people.

¿ Some people received appointments with external health professionals using Medic spot. Medic spot is a piece of technology which uses a camera, this allows doctors to examine a person without visiting the care home. This helps to reduce the number of people coming in to Baily House.

¿ Staff had received personal protective equipment (PPE) and training in handwashing and Infection prevention control. Staff had designated areas and guidance for putting on and taking off their PPE. Staff were observed wearing PPE during the inspection.

¿ The service had registered for ‘whole home testing’. There was a plan in place if people tested positive for Covid 19, which involved isolation and barrier nursing.

¿ The registered manager had carried out surveys for all staff and people to gather feedback on how the service had supported them and if they could improve. Overall, people were positive about the care received during Covid 19. The service acted on feedback about staffs’ mental well-being and staff were provided with access to counselling.

¿ Audits were alternated and shared amongst the staff within the service. The aim was for staff to pick up on any areas missed by their colleagues, to share ideas and to grow as a team.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Baily House is a care home providing personal care to 62 older people at the time of the inspection. The service was a specially adapted building over three floors. The service can support up to 66 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider's vision and values were person-centred to make sure people were at the heart of the service.

A creative activities programme was in place. People and relatives told us that staff had gone the extra mile to find out about people’s previous hobbies and interests to enable these to be continued at Baily House.

The registered manager and senior staff had embraced opportunities to undertake new and innovative practices with external professionals. This had led to a positive impact on people who used the service, and shared practice and learning for other social care providers in the area.

There were consistently high levels of constructive engagement with people, family members and staff. A commitment to equality and diversity was evidenced in the home by working with local LGBT network groups and sensitively developed resources were in place. People, relatives and the local community told us they were well supported with their religious or spiritual needs by the in-house chaplain.

The provider had invested in developing an experienced and motivated management structure. The registered manager was extremely knowledgeable, proactive and driven in striving for people to receive better care.

The service had sourced opportunities to make links in its local area and was now an embedded part of community life. By identifying a local need for a resource, sessions such as mother and toddler groups and inviting owners and their pets to a "Bark and Biscuit" session had enhanced the lives of the people who used the service as well as local community members.

The provider had systems in place to make sure people lived in a safe environment. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe from abuse. Staff were trained in the safe use of medicines. Safeguarding concerns and incidents and accidents were checked for patterns and trends.

The service was caring. Everyone had praise for the staff and the management team.

Care plans were now in an new electronic format and information regarding people's care needs and health were not always easily located. Following our inspection the provider confirmed to us that they had addressed this issue and improved their systems.

People were supported to engage in activities they enjoyed. People and their relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 8 March 2016)).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

The service had a registered manager. 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 felt safe living at the home and staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse. Relevant information about incidents which occurred in the home was shared with the local authority. Risks to people’s safety, such as the risk of falling, were appropriately managed. The building was well maintained and the required safety checks were carried out.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff and people received care and support in a timely manner. The provider ensured appropriate checks were carried out on staff before they started work. People received their medicines as prescribed and they were safely stored.

People were cared for effectively by staff who were provided with the knowledge, skills and support to care for them effectively. People were asked to provide consent to the care they received. The Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) was used correctly to protect people who were not able to make their own decisions about the care they received.

People were provided with sufficient quantities of food and drink and encouraged to help themselves to drinks and snacks in between meals. Staff ensured that people had access to any healthcare professionals they required and followed the guidance provided by them.

There were positive and caring relationships between staff and people. People were fully involved in the planning and reviewing of their care and told us they were able to make day to day decisions. People told us that staff treated them in a dignified manner and respected their right to privacy.

People received care that was responsive to their changing needs and staff knew people’s support needs well. Further work was underway to improve the level of detail in people’s care plans. People knew how to complain and any complaints received were appropriately responded to and the registered manager always offered an apology.

There was a positive and transparent culture in the home, people and staff were encouraged to speak up and their comments were acted upon. There was a clear direction provided by the registered manager and provider. There were different ways people could provide feedback about the service they received and their comments were taken seriously. The quality monitoring systems ensured that any areas for improvement were identified and acted upon.