You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

Briar House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service accommodates up to 62 people in a two-storey building which is served by a main lift to the upper floor. Nursing care is not provided.

At our comprehensive inspection in September 2016 the service was rated as requires improvement. There were not enough staff to ensure that people’s needs were met in a timely way. Staff were not recording people whose nutritional intake was poor. Improvements were needed in the quality monitoring ensure that the service could develop and improve. This unannounced inspection took place on 5 June 2018. Improvements had been made and the service is now rated as good.

There was not a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the home. 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 home is run.

A new manager was in post and they had applied to the Commission for registration.

People were kept safe and staff were knowledgeable about reporting any incidents of harm.

People’s individual risk assessments in care records had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. Care records showed they were reviewed and any changes had been recorded.

The environment was clean and a safe place for people to live. We found equipment had been serviced and maintained as required. Staff wore protective clothing such as gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection. We found supplies were available for staff to use when required.

People were helped to take their medicines by staff who were trained and had been assessed to be competent to administer medicines.

People were looked after by enough staff, who were trained and supervised to support them with their individual needs. Pre-employment checks were completed on staff before they were assessed to be suitable to look after people who used the service.

Staff were able to demonstrate their understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS); these provide legal safeguards for people who may be unable to make their own decisions.

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 had access to healthcare professionals and their healthcare needs had been met. Care records seen confirmed visits to and from General Practitioners (GP's) and other healthcare professionals had been recorded.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food and drink.

Staff knew people they supported and provided a personalised service in a caring way. Care plans were organised and had identified care and support people required. We found by conversations with staff they had a good understanding of protecting and respecting people's human rights.

People participated in a range of activities within the service and received the support they needed to help them to do this.

Information available with regards to support from an external advocate should this be required by them.

People were involved in the running of the service. Regular meetings were held for the people and their relatives so that they could discuss any issues or make recommendations for improvements to how the service was run.

There was a process in place so that people’s concerns and complaints were listened to and were acted upon.

Quality monitoring procedures were in pl

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was safe.

Staff understood their roles and responsibilities in ensuring that people were protected from harm.

Risk had been assessed and staff had the information to ensure risks to people had been reduced.

There were enough staff to ensure that people remained safe and received their care in a timely manner.

Effective

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was effective.

Mental Capacity Act assessments and best interests� decisions had been made for people in line with the legal requirements.

Staff were trained and supported to ensure they followed best practice.

People were supported to access all healthcare services they required.

Caring

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was caring.

People were supported by caring, kind and respectful staff who knew each person and their individual needs well.

People and their relatives were involved in planning their care and support and staff showed people that they mattered. Visitors were welcomed.

Staff respected people�s privacy and dignity and encouraged people to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was responsive.

People had the opportunity to take part in activities.

End of life care was discussed with people to ensure their wishes were known.

Complaints and feedback was listened to by the manager and acted upon.

Well-led

Good

Updated 18 July 2018

The service was well led.

People were enabled to make suggestions to improve the quality of their care.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities in providing people with the care that they needed.

Quality assurance systems were in place which reviewed the quality and safety of people's care.