Background to this inspection
Updated
19 March 2021
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.
As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.
This inspection took place on 25 February 2021 and was announced. The inspection was announced prior to us entering the home, so we could ensure that measures were in place to support an inspection and manage any infection control risks.
Updated
19 March 2021
About the service:
¿ Burwell is a care home for up to eight people with learning disabilities.
¿ At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the service.
¿ The service consists of two bungalows, each of which is home to four people. Each bungalow has four single rooms, shared bathrooms, a lounge, dining room and kitchen.
¿ It is in a residential area on the outskirts of Burwell village.
Rating at last inspection:
¿ Requires improvement. (The last report was published on 25 January 2018.)
Why we inspected:
¿ This was a planned inspection based on the last rating.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ The care service was being developed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
¿ People were protected from avoidable harm by a staff team trained and confident to recognise and report any concerns. Staff assessed and minimised any potential risks to people. Staff followed the provider’s procedures to prevent the spread of infection and reduce the risk of cross contamination. The provider had systems in place to enable staff to safely manage people’s medicines.
¿ The provider had a system in place to make sure they only employed staff once they were satisfied of their suitability to work with people who used the service.
¿ The service was very dependent on agency staff to ensure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. This was due to difficulties in recruiting permanent staff. There were increased risks from using agency staff, but the providers processes, including, mainly using agency staff who had worked at the service before, helped to reduce these risks. Staff worked together to ensure people were safe and well cared for.
¿ Most staff knew the people they cared for well and understood, and met, their needs. People received care from staff who were trained and well supported to meet people’s assessed needs. Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink and to access external healthcare services. Staff worked well along with external professionals to maintain people’s physical and emotional wellbeing.
¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were involved in making decisions about their care and support. Where people needed addition support to make decisions, staff had referred people to external advocates.
¿ Staff supported people in a kind and compassionate way and displayed empathy for people’s fears. Staff were respectful when they spoke with and about people. Staff supported people to develop their independence. People were supported in a individualised way.
¿ Support was individualised and tailored around individual’s specific needs. People and their relatives were involved their care reviews. People’s care plans had been completely revised since the last inspection to ensure they were up-to-date, and more individualised. People’s needs were constantly reviewed, and support adapted as required. Staff supported people to take part in pastimes and interests. The provider had invested in new staff to help them support people with their interests and keep occupied.
¿ No one using the service needed end of life care at the time of our inspection. The provider had policies for staff to refer to should the need arise.
¿ The service was effectively managed by a registered manager and team leader who had been in post under a year. It was clear the new management team had brought about significant improvements in the service. They led by example and had a passion for continually driving improvements and placing people at the centre of the service. They promoted a culture that focused on people as individuals. The registered manager developed positive links with outside agencies and used feedback to learn from mistakes.
¿ There provider and manager had put robust systems in place to effectively monitor the service and bring about improvement.
¿ People and their families felt able to raise concerns. The provider had systems in place, including a complaints procedure, to deal with any concerns or complaints.
More information is in the detailed findings below.
Follow up:
¿ We will continue to check the service to ensure people receive care which meets their needs. We plan our inspections based on existing ratings and on any new information which we receive about each service.