The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Brantwood Hall Care Home

Overall: Inadequate read more about inspection ratings

10-14 North Avenue, Wakefield, West Yorkshire, WF1 3RX (01924) 364718

Provided and run by:
Winnie Care (Brantwood Hall) Limited

Important: We are carrying out a review of quality at Brantwood Hall Care Home. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

All Inspections

29 June and 2 July 2015

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The inspection of Brantwood Hall Care Home took place on 29 June 2015 and was unannounced. We visited for a second day, on 2 July and this was announced There was a registered manager in post who was away on holiday on the first day of the inspection. However, there was a deputy manager and home administrator who were in charge of the running of the home.

The service was inspected in February 2015 and found to be in breach of 11 regulations.

Brantwood Hall Care Home is in a quiet residential area of Wakefield. The home provides accommodation for up to 60 older people. The home consists of two separate houses, numbers 12 and 14, located in the same grounds.

Staff had a good knowledge of how to ensure people were safeguarded from abuse.

Staff recruitment was robust and all vetting was in place to ensure staff were suitable to work in the home.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and demonstrated good teamwork. However, there were not enough staff available to attend to people in a timely manner.

Individual risk assessments for people’s care were not in place.

Many staff had undertaken regular mandatory training, but lacked training in specialist areas such as dementia care, pressure care and healthy eating. Staff lacked knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Medications were given safely on the whole but there were some minor issues with the recording of warfarin and the storage of unused medicines to be returned.

People enjoyed their meals and there were much improved opportunities for people to drink regularly. Staff replenished people's drinks frequently and reminded them to drink in the warm weather. Monitoring and recording of people's food and fluid intake was still an area to improve.

We noticed an improved quality of staff interaction with people since our last visit and staff were respectful and caring in their approach on the whole. People told us they felt safe and happy, although there were few activities for them to be engaged with in a meaningful way.

We saw the provider had responded positively to recommendations made at the last inspection and those made by partner agencies such as the local authority and the infection control team.

Although there was considerable work to be done, there was evidence of action being taken to secure improvements. However, audits and quality assurance systems were not robustly in place to ensure the quality of the provision.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

11 February 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection of Brantwood Hall took place on 11 February 2015 and was unannounced. We previously inspected the service on 18 September 2013 and, at that time; we found the provider was not meeting the regulations relating to care and welfare and records. We asked the provider to make improvements. The provider sent us an action plan telling us what they were going to do to make sure they were meeting the regulations. On this visit we checked to see if improvements had been made.

Brantwood Hall is a care home currently providing care for up to a maximum of 60 older people. The home consists of two separate houses, numbers 12 and 14, located in the same grounds, providing care and support for people with residential needs including people who are living with dementia.

The service had 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that people were being put at risk because robust procedures and arrangements were not in place to keep people safe. Incidents, which had the potential to become an abuse or safeguarding issue were not investigated. There were issues with the safety of the premises including a fire door which was difficult to open, poor standards of cleanliness and infection control and a lack of equipment.

There were not enough staff available to meet people’s care needs.

People did not always receive their prescribed medicines and where errors where identified, there was no evidence that appropriate action had been taken.

This demonstrates breaches of regulations 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 21 and 22 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to regulation 13, 12, 15,19 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Staff had not been recruited safely and staff training was not up to date. We were unable to evidence some staff had received induction training when they commenced employment.

The registered manager told us they did not complete any assessments of peoples mental capacity and we were unable to evidence from peoples records that staff were acting in accordance with peoples likes and preferences.

The menus offered a limited choice of hot food for people. We saw people did not receive their lunchtime meal in a timely manner. Peoples food records did not evidence they were receiving adequate nutrition and hydration to meet their needs.

These examples demonstrate breaches of regulations 14, 18 and 23 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to regulation 14, 11 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

We saw evidence that staff had got people who were not able to manage their own care needs up and out of their beds and prepared for the day at 4am. People were not always protected against the risk of developing pressure sores.

During the inspection we observed staff rarely offered people choices or enabled them to make decisions about their everyday lives.

These examples demonstrate breaches of regulations 9 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to regulation 9 and 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

Peoples care and support records were inaccurate and did not reflect the current care and support needs.

There was no system in place to record or monitor complaints.

These examples illustrate breaches of regulations 19 and 20 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to regulation 16 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014..

There was a lack of robust and effective monitoring in place to ensure the service provided safe, effective and responsive care. There was no evidence the registered provider or the registered manager assessed or monitored the quality of the service which was delivered to people.

These demonstrate breaches of regulation 10 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 which corresponds to regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014..

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

17, 18 September 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

Prior to this inspection, the CQC had received some information of concern about the care provided in this home. We looked at these concerns during our inspection and reported our findings under the outcome headings.

We spoke with six people who lived in the home and five relatives who were mostly very complimentary about the home. One person explained: 'I have been to other homes for respite care but this is the best'. A relative told us: 'I believe my relative would not have reached the age they are if it wasn't for this place. The staff are very good'.

We found, in most cases, care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. However, we found staff had not taken proper steps to ensure the safety and welfare of one person by failing to access specialist help and support in assessing, planning and delivering the care in a way that met their individual needs.

We found people were referred to the dietician where appropriate. We spoke with a visiting dietician who told us they were happy with how the home was meeting the dietary needs of the people they had come to see.

Staff told us they received relevant training and support to equip them with the right skills to do their job and had good support from the managers.

We saw the home was in the process of updating people's care records into a new format. However, we found some people's care records were not accurate, up to date or fit for purpose.

22 August 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

People said staffing levels had improved. A person who was using the service told us, 'Staff now have more time to sit down and talk with me. They are not rushing around any more.' Another person commented, 'I am very happy with things. Staff are very good and supportive and come quickly if I need any assistance.'

People told us they were invited to house meetings and were asked for their opinions about how improvements could be made. One person said; 'I think it has given me more of an idea about what is going on in the home.'

One person did tell us they sometimes felt uncomfortable when staff used hoisting equipment to assist the person with their mobility.

26 June 2012

During a routine inspection

During our visit we spoke with four people who were using the service and five relatives who were visiting the home.

People using the service told us they were encouraged to be independent and to make their own decisions.

People explained how staff discussed their care with them and involved their family in this. They told us that staff treated them in a dignified way. Relatives also spoke positively about the attitudes of the staff team and said they were always made to feel welcome and their views were respected and acted on.

People told us they received good care from an efficient staff team. Their relatives also shared this view. One relative said; 'They (staff) are all very approachable and we have recommended this home to several people.'

Each person spoken with said they felt safe at the home and that people got on well together most of the time.

Relatives told us that concerns were dealt with properly. One relative said; 'We are notified immediately about any issues.'

People living at the home and relatives made comments about the need for more staff. They said that because of this staff did not have much time to sit and talk with them, activities were limited and responses to call bell requests were sometimes slow.

People did say they had been asked to complete questionnaires in the past about their views on the care and services provided. Relatives also said they attended meetings with the staff.