We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bradbury Court 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 Bradbury Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Bradbury Court is a purpose-built residential care home providing personal care for up to four people with learning disabilities and/or autism. At the time of the inspection four people were living within the home.
The home is a single level property in a residential area of Market Drayton. All bedrooms have en-suite wet rooms/ toilets and the property is wheelchair accessible throughout. There is a large garden and separate community allotment space. There is a car parking area to the front.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.
As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people.
The service used some restrictive intervention practices as a last resort, in a person-centred way, in line with positive behaviour support principles.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were supported by a stable staff group who were kind, caring and delivered high quality, personalised care. Staff had developed close and trusting relationships and detailed care plans with the people they supported, were aware of their life histories and their expressed preferences.
The provider had safeguarding systems to protect people from the risk of abuse or unsafe care. Staff were aware of the procedures, had received training on it and knew what action to take. Staff had the required skills and expertise to meet people's needs effectively and provide good outcomes that promoted well-being and a good quality of life.
Staff assessed and reviewed people's physical, mental health and social needs and the progress they were making towards their goals. Records confirmed people's choices were always considered and they and/or their representatives had been involved in any decisions about their care.
The safe and effective management and monitoring of medication meant that people received their medicines as prescribed and there was strict monitoring of 'as required medicine'. Staff worked with other agencies and health professionals to support people to receive the care, treatment and support they needed promptly.
The registered provider had procedures in place for assessing a person's mental capacity in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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.
People received support to maintain good nutrition and hydration in line with their personal choice and preferences and their healthcare needs. The service worked collaboratively with other agencies and professionals to support people’s health and well-being.
People's social and emotional needs were emphasised as part of people's overall individual support. The staff helped people living in the home to maintain their friendships and independence. Advocacy services were available to provide independent support if people needed this.
People's communication needs were thoroughly assessed and understood by staff. This helped to support people's communication needs and the Accessible Information Standard (AIS).
A complaints procedure was in place and people, their relatives and friends were given the opportunity to give regular feedback on the service.
The registered manager and staff showed a clear desire to develop and improve their service in a planned and managed way. They showed knowledge, enthusiasm and an understanding of the importance of openness and working closely with families, other agencies and healthcare professionals to make sure people had the best care.
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 23 February 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Bradbury Court provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people with learning disabilities. At this inspection they were providing care and support for four people.
A registered manager was in post and was present throughout this inspection. 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. The registered manager was supported day to day by a deputy manager who was present at this inspection.
People were safe as staff had been trained and understood how to support people in a way that protected them from danger, harm and abuse. People had individual assessments of risk associated with their care. Staff knew what to do in order to minimise the potential for harm.
People were supported by enough staff to safely meet their needs. People received help with their medicines from staff who were trained and assessed as competent to support them safely. The provider followed safe recruitment practices and completed checks on staff before they were allowed to start work.
The provider had systems in place to address any unsafe staff practice including retraining and disciplinary processes if needed.
Staff members had the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of those they supported. Staff attended training that was relevant to the people they supported. Additional training and support needed to meet people’s specific requirements was provided when necessary.
Staff members were aware of the guidance and legislation that governed their practice. People were supported in a way that maintained their individual rights. People were involved in decisions about their care and were given information they needed in a way they understood. When people were not able to make decisions themselves staff members knew what to do to ensure any decisions made were in their best interests.
People had positive and caring relationships with staff members who supported them. People’s likes and dislikes were known by staff who assisted them in a way which was personal to them.
People had their privacy and dignity respected by staff members. People had access to healthcare when needed and staff responded to any changes in needs promptly and consistently. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain good health.
Staff were supported by a management team who they found approachable. The provider undertook regular quality checks in order to drive improvements. People were involved in their home and felt their opinions mattered to the provider. Any suggestions people made were valued. The provider had systems in place to respond to the suggestions of others.