You are here


Inspection carried out on 9 October 2018

During a routine inspection

We carried out an announced inspection of The Bungalow on 9 October 2018.

The Bungalow is a residential respite service, which provides short term accommodation and personal care for up to two younger adults or children. Respite services enable a person’s usual care giver to have a break from caring while their relative still gets the care they need. At the time of our inspection the service was not providing any younger adults or children with support.

The service is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided and we looked at both during this inspection.

This was our first inspection of the service. During the inspection we found that the provider was meeting all regulations reviewed. We have made a recommendation about the provider ensuring that people receive support from consistent staff who are familiar with their needs.

At the time of our inspection the service 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. The registered manager was responsible for the day to day running of the service.

Some relatives told us their family members were not always supported by staff they knew and staff were not always familiar with people’s needs. They told us they had raised this concern with the registered manager but improvements had not been made.

Staff told us they encouraged people to be as independent as they could be. However, one relative thought that some staff could do more to promote their family member’s independence.

Two relatives were happy with the support provided to their family members to take part in activities and outings. However, one relative told us they felt some staff did not encourage their family member enough to participate in activities.

The relatives and staff we spoke with were happy with staffing levels. They felt there were always enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Relatives told us the staff who supported their family members were kind and caring.

Records showed that staff had been recruited safely. The staff we spoke with were aware of how to protect people from abuse or the risk of abuse.

Staff received an effective induction and appropriate training. Relatives felt that staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

People received appropriate support with nutrition and hydration and their healthcare needs were met. Information about the community healthcare professionals involved in supporting people was available.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems at the service supported this practice. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, the service had taken appropriate action in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People’s communication needs were identified and detailed information was available about how people communicated and any support they needed.

The registered manager regularly sought feedback from people supported by the service and their relatives about the care provided.

Relatives and staff were happy with how the service was being managed. Staff told us they found the registered manager approachable and they felt well supported.

A variety of audits and checks were completed regularly by the registered manager. We found that the audits completed were effective in ensuring that appropriate levels of quality and safety were being maintained at the home.