Blackbrook House Care Home

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff put on, took off and disposed of personal protective equipment (PPE) safely in line with the relevant guidance. Throughout our inspection staff were wearing the required levels of PPE and maintaining social distancing as much as possible.

There was a designated room with appropriate infection prevention and control measures set up, enabling safe visiting. Relatives were also supported to safely visit their loved ones in exceptional circumstances, such as when people were receiving end of life care.

Processes in place for any visitors were clearly displayed on entrance to the home, and included a temperature check, hand sanitiser, a questionnaire to identify any previous contact with COVID-19. Appropriate PPE was available for use.

Regular testing was completed for staff and people living at the service. This meant prompt action could be taken should anyone test positive for COVID-19.

Processes and policies were in place to ensure people were admitted safely and self-isolated for 14 days, in accordance with national guidance.

Staff had training to manage infection control and COVID-19. There was a contingency plan for the service to follow in case of an outbreak.

The service was clean and hygienic. Robust cleaning measure were in place. For example, measures were in place to make sure high touch areas were cleaned on a regular basis and visiting areas were thoroughly cleaned prior to being used again.

Up to date policies, procedures and guidance for the service had been implemented. We found one policy which needed to be updated however, the staff were following current guidance in practice. This was updated immediately following the inspection.

Quality assurance audits were being completed during the COVID-19 pandemic to reflect best practice. Staff knew how to immediately instigate full infection control measures to care for a person with symptoms to avoid the virus spreading to other people and staff members.

Blackbrook House Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to 28 people, some of whom live with dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors which are accessed by a lift. There are communal areas such as lounges, and dining areas and the home has substantial gardens.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People told us they felt safe and relatives felt people were safe. Systems were in place to respond to any safeguarding concerns and staff were knowledgeable about how to report any concerns. Staff were confident any concerns would be dealt with appropriately and swiftly by the registered manager. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff deployed to meet people’s needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s needs were assessed and if needed referrals made to healthcare services.

Staff received training and had updates as needed. Staff felt well supported and had opportunity for supervision. Meal times were unhurried, and people had the support they needed. There was a choice of meals and plenty of drinks available throughout the day. Systems were in place to monitor people’s nutritional intake and take action where needed.

People told us, and we observed staff were kind and caring. People were treated with dignity and respect. People’s individual preferences were recorded in their care plan and staff knew people’s needs well. Visitors were welcomed at any time and offered refreshments.

People’s care was responsive to their needs. Where people required additional monitoring, this was carried out and recorded. Care planning reviews were held regularly, and people could have relatives present if they wished. The service provided end of life care and worked with local healthcare professionals to make sure people were comfortable.

Quality assurance systems were in place which identified areas for development and improvement. The registered manager had action plans in place to drive improvement.

People’s views were sought, and action taken in response to feedback given. There was a positive culture at the service where staff were encouraged to voice their opinions and share ideas. Staff morale was good, and people, relatives and staff told us the service was well-led.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection - The last rating for this service was Good (published 10 February 2017).

Why we inspected - This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up - We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Blackbrook House Care Home provides care and accommodation for up to 28 people and there were 26 people living at the home when we inspected. These people were all aged over 65 years and had needs associated with old age and frailty.

All bedrooms were single although there was one room which could accommodate two people. Each bedroom had an en suite toilet facility. There was a communal lounge and dining areas which people used. A passenger lift was provided so people could access the first and second floors. The service was decorated and furnished to a high standard, which promoted the comfort and dignity of people living there.

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 service used an electronic system for recording medicines administered to people. These records did not always reflect the medicines people were prescribed which meant there was a risk people may not receive the correct medicine.

Staff were trained in adult safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if they considered people were at risk of harm or if they needed to report any suspected abuse. People said they felt safe at the home.

Care records showed any risks to people were assessed and there was guidance of how those risks should be managed to prevent any risk of harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment procedures were adequate and ensured only suitable staff were employed.

Staff were trained and supervised so they provided effective care to people.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Staff were trained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s capacity to consent to their care and treatment was assessed and applications made to the local authority where people’s liberty needed to be restricted for their own safety.

There was a choice of food and people were generally complimentary about the meals. The food was wholesome and nutritious. People were consulted about the food and meal choices.

People’s health care needs were assessed, monitored and recorded. Referrals for assessment and treatment were made when needed and people received regular checks such as dental and eyesight checks.

Staff were observed to treat people with kindness and dignity. People were able to exercise choice in how they spent their time. Staff took time to consult with people before providing care and showed they cared about the people in the home.

People said they were consulted about their care and care plans were individualised to reflect people’s choices and preferences. Each person’s needs were assessed and this included obtaining a background history of people. Care plans showed how people’s needs were to be met and how staff should support people.

Activities were provided for people who said they were satisfied with the activities.

The complaints procedure was available and displayed in the entrance hall. People said they had opportunities to express their views or concerns. There was a record to show complaints were looked into and any actions taken as a result of the complaint.

Staff demonstrated values of treating people with dignity, respect and as individuals. People’s views about the quality of the service were sought. Staff views were also sought and staff were able to contribute to decision making in the home. The culture of the service was focused on meeting peoples’ needs and preferences. People and their relatives said they felt able to approach the management of the service who they had confidence in.

A number of audits and checks were used to check on the effectiveness, safety and quality of the service.

We spoke with two people who used the service who commented highly about the support and care they received. They were supported to make their own decisions about their daily routines, activities and were able to make their own healthcare decisions.

Individualised care plans detailed the support and care each person required. People confirmed they received the support and care they needed and liked. The home ensured relevant health care professionals were contacted when needed.

The quality of the service provided was monitored by an effective quality assurance processes.