We carried out a review of the data available to us about Brancepeth Court on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Brancepeth Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Brancepeth Court is a care home, which can accommodate up to 49 people. The service is split into three units, which provides nursing and personal care for older people, a 7 bed facility for adults with learning disabilities called Rose Cottage and a unit for people with mental health needs. On the day of inspection there were 38 people living in Brancepeth Court and Rose Cottage.
Brancepeth Court is located in the same building as another registered care home called Lumley Residential Home.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
Right Support
People were regularly asked for their opinions and gave them freely. People were involved in discussions about their support and given information in a way they understood. Where people had support, they told us this was flexible, available when they needed it and to the level they needed. People were supported safely with medicines. Infection prevention and control practices reflected current guidance.
Right Care
Staff understood how to protect people from poor care and abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. The service had enough appropriately skilled staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it. The provider understood the new electronic assessment tool required further enhancement to ensure it fully covered people’s needs.
Right culture
The service was open to new ways of working and ongoing improvements were introduced to promote independence and inclusivity. Staff placed people’s wishes, needs and rights at the heart of everything they did. They sought advice and feedback from everyone involved in people's care. Staff were aware of and working to best practice guidance for supporting people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was good (published 22 February 2018).
Why we inspected
This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.
We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.
This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions safe and well-led which contain those requirements. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.
The overall rating for the service has remained good based on the findings of this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• Systems were in place to allow safe visiting, including screening visitors to reduce any potential infection risk, before they entered the building.
• Social distancing was encouraged, and changes had been made to communal areas to promote this.
• Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE). Training in infection prevention and control measures and the appropriate use of PPE had taken place.
• Systems were in place to admit people safely into the home.
• A regular programme of Covid-19 testing was in place for people and the staff team.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Brancepeth Court accommodates up to 49 people in one adapted building. People are accommodated in two separate units, each of which had separate adapted facilities. The service provides both nursing and residential care. On the day of our inspection there were 36 people using the service. Rose Cottage accommodated seven people with a learning disability and 29 older people and five younger adults with disabilities lived within the main Brancepeth Court unit.
The inspection took place on 15 January 2018 and was unannounced. This meant staff did not know we were visiting.
We last inspected Brancepeth Court on 19 October 2015 and rated the service as ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.
The service had a registered manager who was on duty during the course of our visit. The registered manager was also a registered nurse. 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.
Staff and the management team understood their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and staff had been trained in safeguarding adults. People we spoke with and their relatives told us they felt very safe at the home. The registered manager shared learning from feedback and safeguarding events with the staff team through recorded meetings.
Where potential risks had been identified an assessment had been completed to keep people as safe as possible. Health and safety checks were completed and procedures were in place to deal with emergency situations.
The home was clean, and we saw staff followed good practice in relation to wearing personal protective equipment when providing people with care and support. The environment was homely, accessible and dementia focussed. For example, the lighting had been replaced throughout the home which increased visibility for everyone and enabled a more pleasant environment.
Medicines were managed safely. We saw medicines being administered to people in a safe and caring way. People confirmed they received their medicines at the correct time and they were always made available to them.
We found there were sufficient care staff deployed to provide people’s care in a timely manner. We saw that recruitment checks were carried out to ensure that staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. People told us their needs were attended to promptly.
Staff received the support and training they required. Records confirmed training, supervisions and appraisals were up to date.
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 gave positive feedback about the meals they were served at the home. People received the support they needed with eating and drinking by the staff team who were trained to support people with nutritional needs.
We saw people’s healthcare needs were well monitored and records in relation to the monitoring of people’s health, nutrition and pressure care were recorded.
People were supported by care staff who were aware of how to protect their privacy and dignity and show them respect at all times. The home had a dignity champion who was committed to the role and had ensured people were involved in the day to day running of the service. End of life care was provided by compassionate and well trained staff.
People’s needs were assessed before they came to live at the service and then personalised care plans were developed and regularly reviewed to support staff in caring for people the way they preferred.
An activities coordinator provided a range of activities and support for people to access the community. On the day of our visit, people had gone on a bus trip and we saw other people having one to one manicures.
People and staff were positive about the management of the home. Many staff had worked at the service for a number of years and this added to the feeling of a caring, well-run home.
The provider had an effective complaints procedure in place and people who used the service and family members were aware of how to make a complaint. Feedback systems were in place to obtain people’s views about the quality of the service. We saw a suggestion book was made available and surveys were due to be carried out.
The service had good links with the local community and local organisations. The registered manager had a robust quality monitoring system in place with actions for any improvements identified and shared with the staff team.
.
This inspection took place on 19 and 20 October 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the registered manager or the registered provider knew we would be inspecting.
At our last inspection in December 2014 we found the provider had not taken appropriate steps to ensure staff were appropriately supported to enable them to safely deliver care and treatment to people. The registered provider had also not protected service users against the risks of unsafe care by not regularly assessing and monitoring the quality of the service provided. Following the inspection the registered manager sent us an action plan to tell us how they intended to improve the service.
Brancepeth Court is part of a complex of care facilities located on one site, called the Willington Care Village. Brancepeth Court is registered to accommodate up to 49 people. The home is split into two separate units; the main nursing and residential unit, and Rose Cottage which accommodates 8 people with learning disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were 23 people living in the residential/nursing unit and eight people living in Rose Cottage.
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. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.
The registered provider had put in place robust recruitment checks to ensure people were cared for by staff with appropriate background.
We saw people had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place. Each PEEP specified the support required for people to safely evacuate the building.
We found the property was well maintained and actions had been taken which ensured the building was safe. This included weekly fire alarm testing, hot water testing and portable appliance testing (PAT).
We found people’s medicines were safely stored and administered in a caring and patient manner.
We observed people eating their meals and found staff gave people a choice of meals and supported people to eat with dignity and at their own pace.
We found the provider met the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant the provider had sought authorisation from the relevant local authority to keep people safe.
Consent to provide care had been obtained by the registered provider either from the person concerned or their family member in the absence of the person having capacity to understand consent issues.
Since our last inspection the decorating of Brancepeth Court had been completed. We saw the new decoration included using different colours for bedroom doors and having handrails which could be differentiated from the wall by people living with dementia.
During our inspection we observed staff having meaningful conversations with people and listening to what people said. We found the staff approached people in a caring manner and gave them the time to respond.
We found relatives for those people living with dementia had been involved in the care planning of their close family member.
We found people who lived in the home had person centred care plans in place which met their needs. Where people required additional care plans for example regarding falls, the use of a hoist and challenging behaviour these needs had been identified and care plans put in place.
The home could not be clear with us about the information they had sent to hospital when people needed to be admitted.
The service had addressed behaviours which had challenged them and this had ensured people were protected.
During our inspection we discussed ways of working with the registered manager and staff, where we found there were ways to improve the service, for example improving people’s hydration records; we found the registered manager and the staff responded immediately to consider the improvements and put actions in place.
We found the registered provider and the registered manager carried out a number of audits to monitor the quality of the service.
We found the service had worked in partnership with GPs, social workers, optician, dentist, chiropodists and dieticians to meet people’s needs.
We saw there were arrangements in place to enable people who used the service, their representatives, staff and other stakeholders to affect the way the service was delivered. Although these arrangements were in place the registered manager had received a limited response to questionnaires which made it difficult to measure the service.
This inspection took place on 23 and 29 December 2014 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
At our last inspection in September 2014 we found the provider had breached Regulation 15 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010 in relation to the safety and suitability of premises. We saw during this inspection there had been some improvements to the premises and there was ongoing work.
Brancepeth Court is part of a complex of care facilities located on one site, called the Willington Care Village. Brancepeth Court is registered to accommodate up to 49 people. The home is split into two separate units; the main nursing and residential unit which is called Brancepeth Court and a smaller unit Rose Cottage. Rose Cottage is separated from the main unit and provides accommodation for eight people with learning disabilities.
At the time of our inspection Brancepeth Court had a registered manager. 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.’
We found the provider had in place recruitment arrangements to ensure staff employed by the service were of good character and were able to work with vulnerable people.
We saw there were four gaps in people’s medication records which were attributed to agency staff not signing. Notes had been left for the agency staff to sign. However we could not be assured that although the agency staff had given people their medicines.
We looked at staff training records and found there were staff who had not received updated training in 2014 to meet people’s needs. We also found staff had not received the required level of support through supervision meetings with their line manager. This meant there was a breach of the relevant legal regulation and you can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We also found the management team required training in the Mental Capacity Act and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards to ensure proper procedures were carried out with people who had been assessed to be deprived of their liberty for their own safety.
Staff were able to tell us about how they met people’s needs and described to us actions they took to engage people and achieve the best outcomes for them.
We found activities had been put into place by staff and had been adapted so that people were able to join in.
We found people’s dignity and well-being was at risk of being compromised through the lack of continence care supplied to them.
We found the registered manager had appropriately responded to people’s complaints. They had conducted investigations and responded to the complainant. People could be assured their complaints had been addressed.
There were processes to monitor the quality of the service but we found mattress audits had not been carried out since April 2014. These audits had been set up by the provider to be carried out on a monthly basis This meant people were at risk of cross infection through the provider not auditing the quality of the service they provided. We found there was a breach of the relevant legal regulation.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, and the staff supporting them and from looking at records.
If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
People told us they were treated with respect and with dignity by the staff.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents.This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The manager told us one application had needed to be submitted and was now waiting for a response from the local authority to address this. We found relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant people were safeguarded as required.
Staff had training on, equality and diversity, and they understood it and knew how to put it into practice.
The service was not well maintained and this compromised people's welfare, privacy choice and dignity. We have asked the provider to make improvements.
The registered manager sets the staff rotas, they told us they took people's care needs into account when making decisions about the staffing numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were met.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they or their representatives were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, social, mobility, equipment and care needs had been identified in care plans where required. Some people said they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.
We spoke with the chef and looked at the arrangements for specialist diets and discussed how they met people's preferences. The chef demonstrated a good understanding of people's nutritional needs and showed us the records they kept of individuals food preferences, allergies, special diets and their likes and dislikes.
People confirmed they were able to see visitors in private and that visiting times were flexible.
Is the service caring?
People told us they were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People commented, 'I never feel rushed by the staff that help me, they do everything for me and help me to do things for myself'.
People using the service, their relatives, friends and other professionals involved with the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised, we saw these had generally been addressed by the provider.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs were recorded and care and support was provided in accordance with people's wishes.
Is the service responsive?
People completed a range of activities in and outside the service regularly. The home had its own adapted minibus, which helped to keep people involved with their local community.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system. The records we looked at showed any shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and the quality assurance systems in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service.
We reviewed the minutes of meetings, social activity calendars and, records of visits by or on behalf of the provider where appropriate we saw action plans were in place to make improvements to the service had been recorded. We saw staff supervision and appraisal sessions were regularly happening.
People said they were involved in their care, with their preferences being sought and taken into consideration. This included being helped to live their lives independently and joining in with activities if they wished. This meant that people who used the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them.
We saw the home was clean and maintained to an acceptable standard. We found the home had processes in place to monitor and manage arrangements intended to prevent and control infections.
.
People told us they were happy with the staff employed by the service and the care they provided, however some people felt there were insufficient staff meaning they sometimes had to wait for assistance. One person said, "They (the staff) are very polite and good at their jobs; there just isn't enough of them.' People said the staff knew them well and how best to help and support them in their everyday life.
There were arrangements in place to gain additional feedback about services from user satisfaction surveys, relatives and staff questionnaires.
People said they were happy with the care and treatment they were receiving. One person said "They keep us well and make sure we're ok" and another said "We are being looked after."
People also said if they wanted anything, they would ask the staff who would see to it for them. One person said "They (the staff) don't hesitate" when they have asked for assistance or used their call bell.
People told us they were happy with the staff employed by the service and the care that they provided. One person said "They're very good to me, the staff. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for the staff." Another person told us "The staff are very good" and another added "They're alright."
Everybody we spoke with told us they felt safe at Brancepeth Court and with the care staff employed by the service. People said they knew they could ask the staff at any time if they wanted something. They also said the staff knew them well and how best to help and support them in their everyday life.
People told us they were happy with the service and knew how to raise issues, should they have any. Everyone that we spoke with said they didn't have any complaints or concerns.