Archived: Bartlett Close

Updated 6 May 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 21 March 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider a 48 hour notice to ensure people who use the service could be given an opportunity to speak with us. The inspection was carried out by one inspector. Prior to our visit, we had reviewed the information we had held about the home, including previous inspection reports and any concerns raised about the service. We had also looked at notifications sent in to us by the registered manager, which had revealed to us how incidents and accidents had been managed.

During our inspection we talked to one person. We also spoke with the registered manager, the area manager, a senior member of staff, two regular members of staff and one agency worker. Some people living in the home were unable to tell us about the care and support they received. We received feedback from three relatives of people living at Bartlett Close. This enabled us to form our views of the support people received.

We pathway tracked the care of four people. Pathway tracking is a process which enables us to look in detail at the care received by each person in the home. We saw four staff recruitment files and supervision records. We looked at all staff training records and a training record which covered the period of 2015-2016. We considered how information was gathered and quality assurance audits were used to drive improvements in the service. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service, such as health and safety files, risk assessments, staffing rotas and business continuity plan.

Updated 6 May 2016

The inspection took place on 21 March 2016. Bartlett Close provides accommodation and personal care to four people who have a learning disability, and the home was fully occupied at the time of the inspection. The service is located in the vicinity of shops, pubs and other local facilities, near the town of Witney in Oxfordshire. Staff are on duty twenty-four hours a day to support people living in the home.

At the last inspection on 20 March 2015 the provider was advised to take action to improve staff’s understanding of the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Enhancement of the systems for monitoring the quality of the service was also suggested. All these recommended actions had been completed.

The home had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A person who was able to communicate with us verbally told us that they felt safe and happy living at Bartlett Close. Staff understood the systems which were in place to protect people from harm, and were able to recognise and respond to abuse in the correct way. People had risk assessments in place to keep them safe whilst enabling them to be as independent as possible.

People’s prescribed medicines were safely managed by staff. Relevant systems and protocols in place ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff’s competence was reviewed regularly to ensure that the medicines were administered safely.

The legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were being followed. The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The registered manager had completed the required training and was aware of their responsibilities. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of the DoLS.

Staff had been provided with training and showed an understanding about safeguarding adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The provider helped people to use advocacy services where required.

Staff received comprehensive induction and on-going training. Staff members were supported by the registered manager who gave them regular one-to-one supervisions.

People were provided with sufficient amounts of food and drink, with all recommendations from health care professionals being followed. People were supported by staff to access a range of health care services which ensured their health was monitored and maintained.

Relatives told us they were satisfied with the care people received. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People, their families and advocates were involved in the process of planning and reviewing their care. Care plans contained information as to the support and care people required to meet their needs. Staff met people and other interested parties to review and update the plans of care to ensure that people’s needs were responsively met and changes to people’s needs identified.

Staff and relatives told us that the service partly relied on agency care workers. Staff also stated it affected their workload as the agency care workers were not trained to administer medication or to use moving and handling equipment.

We saw that some of the people who use the service had raised complaints during the last 12 months. Staff had supported them through the process and the complaints had been investigated and responded to appropriately in a timely manner. Staff felt able to raise any concerns and knew that the management would act on them.

There was an open and transparent culture within the home. Staff understood the vision and values of the service and were actively involved in the development and improvement of the service. The provider understood their responsibility to inform the commission of important events and incidents that occurred within the service, such as safeguarding concerns and DoLS authorisations.

Regular quality and risk audits ensured that the issues affecting people's care were identified. As a result, appropriate actions were taken to drive improvements to the quality of the care the people received.