You are here

Archived: Brimley Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 26 September 2017

This comprehensive inspection took place on 14 and 16 August 2017 and was unannounced on the first day.

Brimley provides accommodation and personal care for up to six adults who require personal care. The service specialises in providing care for both younger and older adults with a learning disability and/or autism. The home is a large bungalow in a quiet cul-de-sac in a residential area of the seaside town Exmouth in Devon.

The registered manager had left the service in April 2017 and was in the process of de-registering as the manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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. After the inspection, the de-registration process of the registered manager was completed.

An area manager in the provider organisation had been overseeing the home and spent several days each week working at Brimley. A recent appointment to the role of manager had been made and this person was in the process of applying for registration as the manager.

The provider organisation Robert Owen Communities has been taken over by another provider, United Response. Senior staff had been in contact with the CQC to arrange to register the service with the new provider.

The service was previously inspected in May 2016 when the service was rated as requiring improvement. At that inspection we found four breaches of regulations and improvements were required as the service was not fully safe, effective, responsive or well-led. The home was the subject of a whole home multiagency safeguarding investigation at the time of our 2016 inspection. These concerns related to staffing, safe care and treatment and records not demonstrating that people’s care and welfare needs were always being met. The local authority, who lead on safeguarding, had monitored the improvements made to the service. They had subsequently closed the safeguarding investigation as they were satisfied with the improvements made.

At this inspection, we found the service had made and sustained improvements and was now meeting all the regulations.

There was a governance system which ensured that the quality and safety of the home was monitored. Where improvements were required, there was a service improvement plan which was updated regularly with actions that had been completed and new actions identified. Checks and audits of the service were routinely carried including audits of medicine administration, fire safety, building maintenance and care records. Senior staff from the provider organisation undertook quality assurance visits on a regular basis.

People were clearly happy and relaxed in the home. Throughout the inspection, we observed people laughing and showing affection towards staff. Comments included “They are very nice, [Manager] is ever so lovely” and “I like it here."

People were encouraged to do activities both outside and in the home. This included going to weekly clubs where people got involved in arts and crafts as well as going out for coffee and lunch. Staff helped people celebrate special occasions by going out to somewhere of the person’s choice. For example, one person who was celebrating their birthday chose to go to the pub with everyone from the home. People were also supported to be involved in day to day living skills such as cooking, shopping, cleaning and personal hygiene.

Staff understood the need to support people to remain as independent as possible. Staff were able to communicate with people using a range of methods both verbal and non-verbal. Some people were able to go out unaccompanied by staff. Care plans showed that this had been risk assessed and systems had been put in place to enable them to contact the home if ne

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 26 September 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from the risks of abuse by staff who understood their responsibilities.

Medicines were stored, recorded and administered safely.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to ensure people were kept safe and had their needs met.

Risks to people had been assessed and supported people to be safe whilst minimising any restrictions on them.

Effective

Good

Updated 26 September 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge.

Staff completed an induction when they first joined and refresher training from time to time.

People were supported to maintain a healthy, balanced diet.

Staff understood their responsibilities in terms of legislation. Where people�s liberty was restricted, staff had ensured they worked within the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to access health services.

Caring

Good

Updated 26 September 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who were kind and compassionate.

Staff knew people well and showed concern for their well-being

People were treated with dignity and respect. People were involved in making decisions about their care.

People�s families were able to visit when they wanted.

Responsive

Good

Updated 26 September 2017

The service was responsive.

Care records reflected people�s current needs. Care records were updated when there were changes to people.

People received care that met their needs, preferences and aspirations.

The service routinely listened to people. There was a complaints policy and procedure. People said they knew how to complain. Complaints had been dealt with in a timely way and to the complainant�s satisfaction.

Well-led

Good

Updated 26 September 2017

The service was well�led.

The home promoted a positive culture and involved people, their relatives and staff in developing the service.

Staff and people knew senior staff and said they felt they were supported by them.

Checks and audits to ensure the quality of the service were undertaken and actions were completed to make improvements where issues were identified.