Archived: Bridgedale House

Bridgedale House is a care home situated in a residential area of Sheffield. It provides accommodation for up to 22 older people who require personal care. Accommodation is provided over three floors, accessed by a list and/or stairs. All bedrooms are en-suite. The home has a spacious garden which is well maintained, and a car park.

The service had a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

We saw risk assessments in place regarding risks associated with people’s care. These explained how people’s care should be delivered in a safe way and how to reduce any risks involved.

The service had policies in place to manage medicines. We saw medicines were stored safely and temperatures were taken of the room and fridge where they were stored.

We looked at policies and procedures in place to safeguard people from abuse and found them to be informative and offer guidance to staff. Staff were knowledgeable about how to recognise and report abuse if required.

We saw the service had a staff recruitment system in place which had been followed effectively. Pre-employment checks were carried out prior to new staff commencing their role.

Staff we spoke with told us the training they received was informative and was face to face. This allowed staff to ask questions pertinent to their role. Staff told us their training covered mandatory subjects such as food hygiene, health and safety, first aid, moving and handling and safeguarding.

Through our observations and from talking with staff and the registered manager we found the service to be meeting the requirements of the DoLS.

We saw that people were offered a nutritious and balanced diet which met their needs. People had a good choice of food and were served drinks and snacks in-between meals. We observed lunch being served and some people required assistance from staff to eat their meals. This was provided in a caring and unrushed manner.

People had access to health care professionals when required. We saw care plans included professionals involved in people’s care and referrals were made to other professionals when required.

We observed staff supporting people and found they were keen to respect people and to maintain their dignity. Staff spoke to people in a lovely, calm and quietly spoken manner.

Staff took time to support people in an unrushed way. Every task was carried out at the persons pace and with their consent.

People’s needs were assessed and care and support was provided in line with their individual care plans. Staff ensured people were involved in their care and reviewed the records on a regular basis to ensure they were still current.

We saw all staff took part in activities and shared the responsibility throughout the day. Staff had the ability of involving everyone in as far as they wanted to be involved. This could be just watching, or chatting about the activity or taking an active part.

The service had a complaints procedure in place which was displayed throughout the home. The service had not received any concerns but had a log set up in preparation.

During our inspection we saw the registered manager interacting with people, relatives and staff and knew them all really well. There was an open door policy and people felt at ease just turning up to the office and chatting.

Audits took place to check the quality of the service and to ensure policies and procedures were being followed.

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People spoken with told us that staff treated them with dignity and respect and that they felt "safe". One person commented: 'the staff always listen to me'.

Relatives spoken with felt their family member was in 'safe hands' and did not have any concerns. One relative commented: 'they [family member] are in a safe place and they are settled'.

All staff spoken with were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and the action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. We saw that the service had a process in place to respond to and to record safeguarding concerns. We found that the service had a copy of the local protocols and followed them to safeguard people from harm.

We found the service had suitable arrangements in place to record people's financial transactions. This told us that the service had made arrangements to safeguard people using the service from financial abuse.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS] although no applications had needed to be submitted. However we found staff had not received training in DoLS. The registered manager informed us that the deputy and themselves would be attending DoLS training shortly.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and people were involved in the writing their care plans. People's relatives or advocates had been invited to participate in their family member's care plan reviews. The service had held a relatives/representatives meeting at the end of 2013 and people's views and suggestions had been gathered. This told us the service actively sought out the views of people's representatives.

Is the service caring?

During the inspection we were not able to speak with some people using the service because we were unable to communicate verbally with them in a meaningful way. Therefore we used a formal method to observe people in the one of the communal areas. We observed staff giving care and assistance to people throughout the inspection. They were respectful and treated people in a caring and supportive way. Staff also explained their actions to people and gained consent. When speaking with staff it was clear that they enjoyed supporting people living at the service.

People spoken with were satisfied with the quality of care they had received and made positive comments about the staff. Their comments included: 'the night staff are very good', 'they [the registered manager] are lovely', 'we are treated okay and the staff are nice' and 'the staff are alright'. They also told us that they saw the doctor when they weren't feeling well.

People's personal preferences and interests were recorded in care plans and support was being provided in accordance with people's wishes.

We spoke with three relatives who were satisfied with the quality of care their family member had received and made positive comments about the staff and communication. Their comments included: 'they [the staff] have got so much patience with all the residents', 'very happy with the quality of the care', 'the staff are lovely, caring and patient' and 'if anything happens they [the staff] contact you'. They also told us that they were invited to attend their relative's care plan reviews. One relative commented: 'we are fully involved and fully informed'.

Is the service responsive?

A copy of the service's complaints procedure was displayed in different areas of the care home. People and/or their representatives told us if they had any concerns they would raise these with the registered manager. One relative commented on how well they were kept informed by staff regarding any changes in their family member's wellbeing. One relative commented: 'they [the staff] always ring us up with the smallest thing'.

Is the service well-led?

Quality monitoring systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from audit checks. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. The service held regular staff meetings to review the performance of the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.