You are here

Archived: Bernadette House

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 25 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

At the time of our inspection the home was without a registered manager. We spoke with the acting manager who told us they had submitted their application for registration to become a registered manager. We observed that they had arrangements in place to provide leadership and support in the interim period.

When we visited this service on 04 April 2014 we found that the service was not compliant because the provider had not ensured that accurate records were kept for people who used the service. We found this had a minor impact on people who used the service.

During this inspection we found that improvements had been made and the provider was now compliant.

We spoke with four care staff, the manager and the provider.

We saw there were systems in place to assess, record and monitor the care that people received.

We found that care records were accessible to staff and written in a format that was easy to follow.

Inspection carried out on 4 April 2014

During a routine inspection

The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives and the staff who supported them. We also looked at four care records and observed care.

We considered the findings of our inspection to answer questions we always ask: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service caring?

We saw how members of staff treated people and observed care. We saw care was delivered well and in a respectful way. We saw that staff were kind and attentive and encouraged people to be independent. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when they supported people.

We observed when staff supported people they did so at their own pace and reassured people if they were upset.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's individual physical, mental and social care and support needs were assessed and met. This also included people's individual choices and preferences as to how they liked to spend their day. During our visit people were offered activities, however we observed if they declined to take part their decision was acknowledged.

We observed staff obtained people's consent before they carried out any care. For example they asked people if they wanted an apron to wear to eat their lunch in.

Is the service safe?

Risk assessments regarding people's individual activities were carried out and measures were in place to minimise these risks.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards in place. We saw applications had needed to be submitted to assess whether two people were being deprived of their liberty. We observed these were not granted as on review it was not considered they were deprived of their liberty. Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is law protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves.

Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. This means that people will be safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. We observed regular maintenance was carried out and health and safety checks were carried out according to legislation, for example legionella checks to ensure people were cared for in a safe environment.

We looked at staff rotas and saw they reflected what the deputy manager had told us regarding staffing numbers. When we spoke with staff they told us they thought there was usually sufficient staff to care for people safely.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

We found gaps in people's records regarding fluid intake. These gaps meant it was difficult to monitor what fluid people had taken and put people at risk of not receiving adequate fluids.

Is the service effective?

Our observations found that members of staff knew people's individual health and wellbeing needs. We saw that people responded well to the support they received from staff members.

We observed staff responded to people's needs and requests in a timely manner.

Is the service well led?

Staff said that they felt supported and trained to safely do their job. Training plans were in place to ensure staff had the appropriate skills to meet people's needs.

Quality assurance systems were in place and people were listened to. We observed it was unclear from records whether or not actions had been completed.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

At the time of our inspection the home was without a registered manager. We spoke with the provider about this and they told us they were in the process of completing the recruitment of a registered manager. We observed they had arrangements in place to provide leadership and support in the interim period.

Inspection carried out on 19 August 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We carried out this inspection as a result of concerns being raised about the administration and storage of medicines.

We observed medicines being administered and looked at records and storage of medicines. We found medicines were administered appropriately and stored according to guidance.

Inspection carried out on 29 May 2013

During a routine inspection

Many of the people who lived at the home had dementia and were unable to talk to us about their care. We spoke with staff and looked at records.

To help us to understand people's experiences we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool. The tool allows us to spend time observing and helps us to record how people spend their time. We carried out the tool for an hour. We

observed positive responses and contact with people.

Overall we observed that people were supported by skilled and experienced staff who understood their roles and responsibilities. We observed there was always a member of staff available to people within the lounge area and staff were present in other areas of the building in order to ensure people were supervised.

We heard staff offering people choices. We also saw staff reassuring people when they were distressed.

We saw from the care plans people received care which was appropriate to their needs.

We also looked at the cleanliness of the home and the systems which protect people from the risk of infections. We found the home was clean and had policies and training in place to support staff in the prevention of infections.

We observed procedures for the administration of medicines and found there were safe and appropriate policies and procedures in place.

During a check to make sure that the improvements required had been made

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

People's personal records including medical records were accurate and fit for purpose.

Inspection carried out on 25 September 2012

During a routine inspection

As part of our inspection we spoke with a number of people who used the service. We also spoke with staff and looked at records.

Overall we observed that people were supported by skilled and experienced staff who understood their roles and responsibilities.

We saw people were treated with dignity and respect and supported to make decisions about their care. The quality assurance systems in place enabled people to express their views about the services and care they received.

People said that the food was good. One person said when asked if they liked the food,"It's good."

People told us they could usually get help when they needed it.

Many of the people that used the service at Bernadette House had dementia and therefore not everyone was able to tell us about their experiences. To help us to understand the experiences people had we used our Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) tool. The SOFI tool allows us to spend time watching what is going on in a service and helps us to record how people spend their time, the type of support they get and whether they have positive experiences.

We carried out the tool for an hour. We observed positive responses and interactions with people .

We heard a person asking for help and observed a member of staff respond to them, "What do you need help with?" When the person was unable to respond staff offered them a number of choices and we saw the person was able to say what they wanted.

Inspection carried out on 14 February 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We were unable to gain the verbal views of some people but other people spoke to us about their experiences living at the home. During our visit we also looked at how staff supported people.

The people we spoke with said they were happy with the care and support they had received and felt the home was a safe place to live. They told us the staff were good at their job and we received only positive comments about how they provided care. One person said, �They look after you well and do things for you when you need help.� Another person commented, �They are very good (staff) they look after you well.�

People told us they felt there was enough staff on duty to meet their needs but some said staff were often �busy�. One person said, �I usually don�t have to wait long to get help, but they are busy today.� A relative told us that on one occasion they had been concerned about the lack of staff on duty. However they commented positively about the level of care staff provided. During our visit we saw staff providing care and support in an unhurried way, they did not rush people and spoke with them encouragingly.

None of the people who lived at the home raised any concerns with us about the way they were cared for. When we asked them if there was something they would like to change at the home to make things better no-one could think of anything.