• Care Home
  • Care home

50 Broadfields

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

50 Broadfields, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 5DU

Provided and run by:
Innovations Wiltshire Limited

All Inspections

6 July 2023

During a monthly review of our data

We carried out a review of the data available to us about 50 Broadfields 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 50 Broadfields, you can give feedback on this service.

22 October 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

50 Broadfields is a small residential care home providing personal care for up to two people. There were two people living at the home at the time of our inspection. The home was in a quiet residential street In Pewsey with its own gardens.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

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. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People were supported to take their medicines safely by staff who had been trained. There were sufficient numbers of staff available to provide safe care and support. Risks had been identified, assessed and were managed with staff making sure people could maintain independence as much as possible. Accidents and incidents were recorded and reviewed by management, so trends could be identified.

Staff were trained and supported so they could provide effective care and support. People chose their own food and did their own shopping with support from staff. People’s needs were assessed and when needed, referrals to healthcare services were made. Staff worked together with healthcare professionals to meet people’s needs.

People, relatives and professionals all told us staff were caring. Staff had worked with people to achieve lifelong goals which had resulted in positive wellbeing. People told us how they had been supported to go on holidays to do things they had always wanted to do. People were valued by staff and supported to spend their time how they wished. One person had started a voluntary job and was looking at potential opportunities for paid work. Activities were provided, and people were encouraged to access their local community.

People, relatives, staff and professionals told us the service was well-led. Staff were supported by an on-call system 24 hours a day which they told us helped them feel safe. Quality monitoring systems were in place and the provider continuously looked to improve. A development director was employed who researched good practice and monitored service developments.

The Secretary of State has asked the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to conduct a thematic review and to make recommendations about the use of restrictive interventions in settings that provide care for people with or who might have mental health problems, learning disabilities and/or autism. Thematic reviews look in-depth at specific issues concerning quality of care across the health and social care sectors. They expand our understanding of both good and poor practice and of the potential drivers of improvement.

As part of thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive interventions practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. This service did not use any restrictive interventions or practices.

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 Requires Improvement (report published 15 November 2018) where we found one breach of Regulation.

The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

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.

10 October 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection was announced and took place on 10 and 11 October 2018. 50 Broadfields is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. This was the service’s first inspection since registration.

50 Broadfields is a small residential home for two people. The home was a detached bungalow with a garden. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

People received their medicines as prescribed however improvement was required to make sure medicines were stored safely and signed in accurately. There were detailed medicines profiles recording all medicines prescribed and reasons for prescribing. Staff had ‘as required’ (PRN) protocols in place to guide them on when to administer this type of medicine.

Recruitment required improvement to ensure that a full employment history was always obtained and any gaps in employment explored. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed.

Quality monitoring systems were not robust as the provider did not have oversight of improvement required. Accidents and incidents had not been analysed to identify patterns or trends. People’s feedback had been sought but the provider had not used it to evaluate and make improvements.

Where risks had been identified there were risk management plans in place which were reviewed regularly. Care plans were person-centred and reviewed regularly. People’s health needs were assessed and support given to access healthcare professionals.

People received care and support from staff who had the skills needed. Staff had been trained and had been able to have formal supervision. Whilst staff felt supported we have made a recommendation about the recording of staff supervision.

People knew how to complain if needed. People were involved in planning their own care and support. They were supported to develop and maintain independence and access their local community when they wished.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff had been trained and understood the general requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005).

The premises were adapted to meet people’s needs and kept very clean. Staff were aware of how to reduce the risks of infection and cross contamination. People had their own rooms and had been encouraged to personalise them.

Staff knew people well, we observed positive interactions between people and staff. People told us they liked living at the service and they could have visitors when they wished. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity and respected people’s rights.

There was an open and positive culture at the service. Staff enjoyed working for the provider and felt valued.

We have found one breach of the Regulations. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.