You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 17 October 2018

The inspection took place on 5 September 2018 and was unannounced.

Bryony Lodge is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Bryony Lodge is a care home which provides accommodation for up to nine people who have a physical disability. At the time of our inspection, there were nine people living in the home.

There was a registered manager at the home. 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.

This was the first inspection of the service, which was registered with CQC under this provider in November 2017.

People felt safe living at Bryony Lodge. Staff knew how to keep people safe and how to identify, prevent and report abuse. They engaged appropriately with the local safeguarding authority.

Individual and environmental risks to people were managed effectively. Risk assessments identified risks to people and provided clear guidance to staff on how risks should be managed and mitigated.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for the safe handling, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.

Recruitment procedures were in place to ensure that suitable staff were employed by the service.

People received care and support from staff who were suitably qualified, skilled and knowledgeable to carry out their roles effectively.

New staff completed a comprehensive induction programme and all staff were suitably supported in their roles.

People praised the standard of care delivered and the quality of the meals. Dietary needs were met and people received appropriate support to eat and drink.

People were supported to access healthcare services when needed and to attend hospital appointments.

Staff interacted with people in a polite and positive way. They spoke about people warmly and demonstrated a detailed knowledge of them as individuals and what was important to them.

People were cared for with dignity and respect and were treated in a kind and caring way by staff. Staff know people well, encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.

Staff protected people's privacy and responded promptly when people's needs or preferences changed. They involved people in the care planning process and kept family members up to date with any changes to their relative's needs.

People received personalised care and support that met their needs. Care plans provided staff with detailed information about how they should support people in an individualised way.

People had the opportunity to access to a range of suitable activities within the service and in the local community. There was an appropriate complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

People, their relatives and visiting professionals felt the home was run well. The provider was actively involved in running the service and there was a clear management structure in place.

Staff were happy in their work and felt fully supported by the provider and the registered manager.

There was an open and transparent culture in the home. People’s relatives and friends could visit at any time and were made welcome.

There was an appropriate quality assurance system in place and where issues were identified, action had been taken promptly.

Inspection areas



Updated 17 October 2018

The service was safe.

People felt safe and staff knew how to identify, report and prevent abuse.

Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place. There were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

Procedures were in place to protect people from the risk of infection.

Individual and environmental risks had been identified and were managed safely.

Medicines were managed and administered safely. They were ordered, stored and disposed of correctly.



Updated 17 October 2018

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable, skilled and experienced to carry out their role effectively.

People had enough to eat and drink and were offered a choice at meal times.

The environment was supportive of people who lived there and people were involved in decisions around the decoration of the service.

Staff followed legislation designed to protect people rights in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to access healthcare services when they required them.



Updated 17 October 2018

The service was caring.

Staff had built positive relationship with people and knew what was important to them.

People were treated with dignity at all times and staff respected their privacy.

Staff encouraged people to stay as independent as possible in all areas of their care.

Staff supported people to meet their cultural and religious needs.



Updated 17 October 2018

The service was responsive.

People received care and support in line with their personal preferences. Care files contained detailed information to enable staff to provide care and support in a personalised way.

Care and support was planned in partnership with people, their families and healthcare professionals where appropriate.

Staff responded promptly when people's needs or preferences changed.

Staff were kept up to date on people's changing needs.

People received appropriate mental and physical stimulation and had access to activities they enjoyed.

The provider had arrangements in place to deal with complaints.



Updated 17 October 2018

The service was well-led.

People were happy living at Bryony Lodge and felt the service was well-led.

The provider was engaged in running the service and there was a positive and open culture.

Staff were organised, motivated and worked well as a team. They felt fully supported and valued by the registered manager.

There were robust auditing processes in place. The quality of the service was monitored and appropriate actions were taken when required.