You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 26 October 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 26 October 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service under the current provider. The service was previously registered under a different legal entity.

Bradbury House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Bradbury House accommodates 10 people in two separate buildings under one registration. Each building was self contained, though staff could move physically between the two as they were separated only by a small garden.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 was also a manager in day to day charge of the home.

The service was safe. Through our observations we saw that people responded positively to staff and were at ease in their company. There were systems in place to support people with their medicines. We found one administration error that had occurred; however this was responded to positively by the manager and an appropriate action plan put in place. The error had not resulted in any harm to the person concerned.

There was a positive approach to managing incidents. Where it had been necessary to use restraint during incidents, these were referred to a specialist who provided advice on whether there was anything that could have been done differently. This gave an opportunity to reflect on the use of restraint and ensure that it was only used when necessary and in a safe way.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. When new staff were recruited, there were systems in place to ensure they were suitable to be employed.

The service met people’s needs effectively. Staff worked with community professionals to manage behaviours that challenged and continually looked and tried new ways to meet people’s needs.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Some people had particular conditions that required special management and these were well described in people’s care plans. Where there were concerns about a person’s weight, staff were responsive and took action to speak with the person’s doctor so that this could be managed.

Staff were positive about their training and supervision. Through discussion, staff demonstrated their knowledge of key topics such as safeguarding vulnerable adults and the Mental Capacity Act.

Staff were kind and caring and we saw that positive relationships had been built between people and staff. Staff provided care and reassurance if people were upset and people responded positively to this. People were supported to maintain contact with people who were important to them; people talked to us about their plans to visit family members.

The service was responsive to people’s needs. Staff understood people and their needs well. People were supported to take part in activities of their choosing. This included people going out independently if they were able to. There were facilities on site for events to take place. People had used this for events to raise money for charity.

The service was well led. Staff worked strongly as a team and spoke in positive terms about working at the home. There was a culture of wanting to continually improve; the home was in the process of making improvements to the building, including adding ensuite bathrooms and creating a sensory room.