You are here

Archived: Bagshot Park Care Centre Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 15 September 2016

The inspection took place on 26 July 2016 and was unannounced. This inspection was to follow up on actions we had asked the provider to take to improve the service people received. Bagshot Park Care Centre provides specialist care and accommodation for a maximum of 22 adults who are diagnosed with acquired brain injury, other neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, as well as strokes and complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at the service.

There was no registered manager in post. 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 registered manager had resigned their post and the service had been supported by an interim manager. A new manager had recently started at the service and was in the process of submitting their application to register with the Care Quality Commission. Both the interim manager and new manager were present to support us with inspection.

At our last inspection in December 2015 we found breaches of the legal requirements with regard to the safe recruitment of staff and the management of care records. The provider wrote to us to inform us how they planned to take in relation to the above concerns. At this inspection we found that the required improvements had been made and the provider was meeting their legal responsibilities.

There were safe recruitment processes in place to ensure staff employed were suitable to work at the service. Staff were knowledgeable regarding their responsibilities of safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and were confident that any concerns raised would be correctly reported. There were sufficient staff deployed in the service to ensure people’s needs were met in a timely manner.

Risks to people’s safety and well-being were assessed and control measures implemented to keep people safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the support people required to manage risks safely. Medicines procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines in line with prescribed guidelines.

Safety checks on the environment and equipment used were completed regularly. Where accidents or incidents occurred these were investigated to ensure any changes to the way people were supported were made and reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The provider had developed a business continuity plan which meant that people’s care would not be interrupted should an emergency occur.

People were supported by skilled staff who received induction and training to support them in their role. Clinical staff had access to supervision from a Nero-rehabilitation consultant to ensure that best practice guidance was followed and any concerns or changes in people’s health were identified quickly. People’s healthcare was supported by an in-house multi-disciplinary team which included nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. In addition, people had access to external healthcare professionals and specialist advice.

People told us that the quality of food was good and a choice was always available. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Where people required support to eat this was provided in a dignified and unhurried way. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual dietary requirements and advice from professionals regarding nutrition was followed.

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people’s rights and spent time with people ensuring they gained consent prior to delivering care. There was a strong emphasis throughout the service on maintaining and developing people’s independence and staff worked together to ensure people’s needs and abilities were continually assessed.

People were supported with kindness and compa

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 15 September 2016

The service was safe.

Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people�s needs in a timely way.

Checks were undertaken when new staff were employed to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.

People were protected from the risk of avoidable harm as risk assessments were monitored.

Medicines were administered and managed safely.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse because staff understood their roles and responsibilities in protecting them.

Effective

Good

Updated 15 September 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received appropriate training and support to carry out their roles.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities in regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards. Staff routinely gained people�s consent before providing care.

People were provided with a choice food and drink which supported them to maintain a healthy diet. Staff were knowledgeable about people�s dietary requirements.

People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to a range of healthcare professionals.

Caring

Good

Updated 15 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff supported people in a caring way and respected their privacy.

People were involved and choices were respected and staff worked with people to develop their independence.

Visitors to the service were made to feel welcome and could visit at any time.

Responsive

Good

Updated 15 September 2016

The service was responsive.

Activities were offered which people told us they enjoyed and people were supported to maintain hobbies and interests.

Care records were detailed and regularly updated to reflect people�s needs. Staff were knowledgeable about how people preferred their support.

People were given information about how to make a complaint and said they would feel comfortable in doing so.

Well-led

Good

Updated 15 September 2016

The service was well-led.

The manager ensured accurate records were maintained which were accessible.

Audits were carried out to ensure the quality of the care provided.

People, relatives and staff were given the opportunity to contribute to the development of the service.

Feedback regarding the quality of the service was sought from people and their relatives.