You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 July 2017

Birchwood House is a residential care home providing accommodation with personal care and support for up to seven people with learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge services. At the time of this inspection there were six people using the service.

At the previous inspection published on 11 December 2014, the service was rated Good. This inspection took place on 28 April and 2 May 2017 and the service remains Good.

There was a registered manager at this service. 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 provider had a recruitment system in place to ensure the suitability of staff working at the service and there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff were knowledgeable about how to report concerns or abuse. Comprehensive risk assessments were carried out with management plans in place to enable people to receive safe care. There were systems in place to maintain the safety of the premises.

The provider had systems in place to ensure the safe administration of medicines. However we found an issue with medicines and have made a recommendation around this.

Staff received appropriate support through supervisions, appraisals and training opportunities. Appropriate applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards had been applied for and authorised. Staff were aware of the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

People were offered a choice of nutritious food and drink and were involved in meal preparation. People also had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their day to day health needs.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure a personalised service was provided. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and were knowledgeable about assisting people to maintain their independence.

A variety of activities were offered which included trips into the community and people had daily meetings to decide which activities they wished to participate in that day. The service had a keyworker system whereby people had a named care worker to oversee their care needs. Relatives knew how to complain and the provider dealt with complaints in accordance with their policy.

The provider had systems to obtain feedback on the quality of the service from people who used the service and from staff. Regular meetings were held for people who used the service to involve them in the development of the service and with staff to keep them updated with policy changes. The provider had various quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement.

We have made one recommendation to the provider and further information is in the detailed findings below.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 July 2017

The service was safe. There were enough staff to support people’s needs. Relevant recruitment checks were carried out for new staff and criminal record checks were up to date.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. There were robust risk assessments in place to ensure risks were minimised and managed. The provider carried out regular building safety checks.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for the administration and management of medicines to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed. However, we found two incidents where the amount of stock for medicines prescribed as needed could not be accounted for. We made a recommendation about this.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 July 2017

The service was effective. Staff and records confirmed they received support to enable them to give care effectively through supervisions and training opportunities.

The provider was knowledgeable about what was required of them to work within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff had awareness of when they needed to obtain consent from people who used the service.

People were offered a nutritious choice of food and drink and were assisted to prepare their meals. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s dietary requirements. People had access to support from healthcare professionals as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 July 2017

The service was caring. People and relatives told us staff were caring. Staff were knowledgeable about how they got to know people and their care needs. We observed people were treated in a caring way.

Staff were knowledgeable about offering people choices and encouraging independence. We observed staff respecting people’s privacy and dignity.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 July 2017

The service was responsive. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs and preferences and about providing a personalised service. People’s care plans were comprehensive and personalised.

People were offered a variety of daily activities and each person who used the service had their own individual activities timetable. Daily planning meetings were held with the people who used the service to decide which activities they wanted to participate in on the day.

Relatives told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were not happy with the service but had not needed to. The provider dealt with complaints in accordance with their policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 July 2017

The service was well led. The service had a registered manager and relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management of the service.

The service had a system of obtaining feedback about the quality of the service. Regular meetings were held with people who used the service and with the staff to keep them updated on service developments.

The provider had various systems of checking the quality of the service provided and dealing appropriately with identified issues.