You are here

Priory Court Care & Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 31 January 2018

This inspection took place on 05 and 06 December 2017 and was unannounced.

The Burnham Nursing and Residential Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The Burnham Nursing and Residential Centre is registered to provide personal care and accommodation for up to 71 older people. At the time of our inspection 43 people were using the service. Accommodation was provided over three floors but at the time of the inspection only two floors were occupied. The upper floor had undergone an extensive renovation and redecoration programme and was ready to be occupied.

Following the last inspection in August 2016 we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well led, to at least good.

At the last inspection we found people were not always safe. Risks to people were not well managed and there were times when there were not enough staff to keep people safe. Staff who administered medicines did not have an up to date competency check. Some staff did not know how to report concerns to the local authority if they had concerns about a person’s safety.

At this inspection we found there were systems and processes in place to minimise risks to people, care plans showed risk had been assessed and clear guidelines were in place for staff to follow. This also included a robust recruitment process and making sure staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.

There was sufficient staff to safely meet the needs of people living in the home. People’s opinions on staffing levels varied with some people still concerned about the use of agency staff. However the registered manager confirmed a recruitment programme was on-going and they had employed permanent staff to provide continuity of care. Records showed that there were adequate numbers of staff available to meet the assessed needs of people in a timely manner.

At the last inspection we found the service was not always effective. Staff did not have a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA provides the legal framework to assess people’s capacity to make certain decisions, at a certain time. When people are assessed as not having the capacity to make a decision, a best interest decision is made involving people who know the person well and other professionals, where relevant. We also found Staff were not always aware of people's food allergies or need to avoid specific drinks.

At this inspection we found staff had received training in the MCA and could discuss how they recognised people’s ability to consent to care. People received effective care from staff who understood their needs. Staff were able to tell us about people’s specific likes and dislikes. People told us they thought staff were well trained and understood them well. The registered manager and staff were very pro-active in arranging for people to see health care professionals according to their individual needs.

All staff attended induction training before they started to work in the home. All staff said they had plenty of opportunities for training and the organisation also promoted dementia awareness training for all their staff.

At the last inspection we found the service was not always responsive. People’s care plans were inconsistent and care staff did not have access to people’s care plans. People or their relatives were not involved in developing their care plans.

At this inspection we found people received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences. People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives. Care staff had access to care plans that were clearly written and included plenty of guidance and information to support them in meeting the needs of people living in the home.

At the last inspection we found the service was not consistently well led. Some quality assurance systems failed to effectively identify areas requiring improvement.

At this inspection we found a lot of hard work had been put into ensuring the systems in place identified where improvements were needed and action was taken to continually drive improvement within the service. There were formal and informal quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were audits and checks in place to monitor safety and quality of care.

The service was well run by a registered manager who had the skills and experience to run the home so people received high quality person-centred care. The manager led a team of staff who shared their commitment to improving standards of care and had a clear vision of the type of home they hoped to create for people.

We saw extensive work had been carried on the renovation and redecoration of the top floor of the building. This had been renovated to a high standard and was ready to be occupied. On-going renovation and redecoration was also evident on the other floors in the home.

People could enjoy a full programme of activities and staff had built up links with the local community to ensure people could stay in touch with organisations such as their place of worship and the local school. People told us the activities organiser worked hard to keep them entertained and occupied.

People said they received care and support from caring and kind staff comments included, “The staff are nice and they care”. And “There are some really lovely staff here”.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 31 January 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who had been well recruited to make sure they were safe to work with vulnerable people.

There were sufficient staff to maintain people’s safety and meet their needs.

People’s medicines were safely administered by staff who had received appropriate training to carry out the task.

Effective

Good

Updated 31 January 2018

The service was effective.

People’s health and well-being was monitored by staff and advice and guidance was sought from healthcare professionals to meet specific needs.

People had access to a good diet and food was provided which met their specific needs and wishes.

People received care with their consent or in their best interests if they were unable to give full consent.

Caring

Good

Updated 31 January 2018

The service was caring.

People were cared for by staff who were kind and patient.

People’s privacy and dignity were respected and they received support in a way that respected their choices.

Responsive

Good

Updated 31 January 2018

The service was responsive.

People were able to make choices about their day to day lives.

People were able to take part in organised activities or choose to occupy their time in their preferred way.

People said they would be comfortable to speak with a member of staff if they had any complaints about their care or support.

Well-led

Good

Updated 31 January 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager promoted inclusion and encouraged an open working environment.

Staff received feedback from the management and felt recognised for their work.

Quality monitoring systems were in place which ensured the management had a good oversight of service delivery

The home was led by a management team that was approachable and respected by the people, relatives and staff.

The home was continuously working to learn, improve and measure the delivery of care to people.