You are here

Archived: Burrswood Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 19 October 2017

Situated in a residential area of Bury Burrswood Care Home offers personal and nursing care for up to 125 people with a wide range of needs from residential care to nursing.

Accommodation is provided on four units. Dunster provides nursing care, Crompton provides residential care, Kay provides residential care for people living with dementia and Peel provides nursing care for people living with dementia. The home is set on two levels. There are lounges, dining areas and bedrooms on both floors. All bedrooms are single accommodation and most with ensuite facilities.

There has been a recent change of legal entity and the provider is now registered as Bupa Care Homes Limited. Therefore this is the first rated inspection for this service. We brought forward this inspection because concerns had been raised with us about night staffing levels and one concern about continence arrangements on Peel unit. This was an unannounced inspection which took place on over three days on 26 July and 2 and 3 August 2017. At the time of our inspection 116 people were living in the home with a wide range of support needs.

There was a 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 was present throughout our inspection.

On the first day of our inspection the registered manager told us that prior to our inspection a decision had been reached to put the staffing levels back to three care staff on nights on Peel unit with the third night carer to be used potentially as a floating member of staff for the whole home. This action had been taken to ensure that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to support people in a safe consistent way.

We looked at the arrangements in place for managing people continence needs. We were informed that a three day continence assessment was carried out which was sent to the local continence promotion nurse who assessed people’s needs and arranged supply of the appropriate pads dependent on the type of incontinence. We saw that there were enough supplies of pads as well as stock available in an emergency for people to use.

There was a stable staff team in place to help ensure that people received consistent support. However staff commented that there could be better team work between the day and night shifts on the dementia units. The registered manager told us they would look into this.

We found staff had been recruited safely. Staff had received safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities to report unsafe care or abusive practices.

Risk assessments had been developed to minimise the potential risk of harm to people during the delivery of their care. These had been kept under review and were relevant to the care provided.

Staff wore protective clothing such as disposable gloves and aprons when needed. This reduced the risk of cross infection.

We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required. Medicines were safely kept with appropriate arrangements for storage in place.

We looked around parts of the building and found it had been maintained, was clean and a safe place for people to live. We saw that routine servicing of the building, for example, gas and electrical safety had been undertaken.

The registered manager and staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant they were working within the law to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions.

Staff had the skills, knowledge and experience required to suppo

Inspection areas



Updated 19 October 2017

The service was safe

Improvements were made to the staffing levels on nights on Peel unit during our inspection. This action was taken to ensure that there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to support people in a safe consistent way.

The staff we spoke with had received training in safeguarding and knew what action to take to ensure actual or potential harm was reported.

Staff had been checked when they were recruited to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable adults.

People's care needs had been risk assessed to help ensure their safety. Systems and processes were in place to ensure the premises and equipment were maintained and safe to use.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines. The home was clean. There were systems in place to manage the control of infection.



Updated 19 October 2017

The service was effective

The registered manager had taken appropriate action to apply for restrictions in place in a person�s best interests to be legally authorised.

Staff were supported through induction, appraisal and the home's training programme to carry out their role effectively.

People told us they liked the food and were able to choose what they wanted to eat. People's nutritional needs were assessed according to dietary preference and need.

People had access to external health professionals to help maintain their health.



Updated 19 October 2017

The service was caring

People living at the home were relaxed and settled. We observed the staff to be caring, polite and sensitive to people's needs.

We observed positive interactions between people living at the home and staff.



Updated 19 October 2017

The service was responsive.

Care was planned in a way that took into account people's individual preferences and wishes.

A programme of activities was available for people living at the home to participate in if they chose to.

People and relatives we spoke with knew how to make a complaint and there were various ways concerns could be raised.



Updated 19 October 2017

The service was well led.

The service had a manager who was registered with the Care Quality Commission. The registered manager was supported by a committed management team.

Staff said they felt supported by the registered manager and that the management of the home was good.

There were on-going audits and quality assurance checks in place to help ensure standards were being maintained.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had been notified of reportable incidents in the home.