Laurel Bank Care Home

Updated 23 January 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The first day of the inspection was carried out by one inspector, an assistant inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who use this type of care service. The second day of the inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Laurel Bank 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. There had been recent changes in management. The new manager planned to register with CQC. The nominated individual was working closely with the new management team. The nominated individual is responsible for supervising the management of the service on behalf of the provider

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced on both days.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed the information we received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We asked for feedback from the local authority and commissioning teams. We spoke with one health care professional. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with four people and five relatives about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with the nominated individual and the manager. We spoke with 15 staff including the deputy manager, activity coordinator, cook and care workers. We spoke with two health care professionals. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included six people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at four staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

The manager sent us further documents after the inspection. This was considered as part of the inspection.

Updated 23 January 2020

About the service

Laurel Bank is a purpose-built residential home situated in the Wilsden area of Bradford. The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to 63 people, including people living with dementia. Accommodation is provided over three floors. The Elizabeth Wing specialises in supporting people who are living with dementia. On the first day of the inspection there were 45 people living at the home. On the second day of the inspection there were 43 people living at the home.

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

Audits and quality monitoring were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Recent checks had highlighted some gaps in documentation. The management team had developed a comprehensive action plan to address the shortfalls. There had recently been a change of manager who was applying to register with CQC. They were passionate about making continued improvements to the service.

People’s care needs were assessed, and they received good quality person centred care from staff who understood their needs well. The service was caring and safe. People were relaxed and comfortable and they were treated in a warm and respectful manner. Some people’s care records required updating. There was a clear action plan in place to correct this.

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. Improvements were needed to fully evidence compliance with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). We have made a recommendation about updating documentation to reflect people's involvement.

The building was designed to meet people’s needs. It was spacious, well maintained and homely. There was a choice of communal and activity areas and a safe outdoor space. The home was well organised and there was a large team of ancillary staff to support the care team. The atmosphere was relaxed and inclusive throughout. One health care professional described Laurel Bank as being “Welcoming and friendly and there is happy feel to the home.”

Staff had the skills and experience to support people appropriately They were knowledgeable about people and the topics we asked them about. They received a wide range of training and supervision. This was reviewed regularly to ensure staff had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

Medication was managed safely. The service was responsive to people’s health and social care needs. There were close links with health and social care professionals and other agencies to ensure people’s needs were met and changes responded to promptly. A diverse range of meaningful activities were available to support people’s social needs.

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 requires improvement (published 27 December 2018). The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last three consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will meet with the provider following this report being published to discuss how they will make changes to ensure they improve their rating to at least good. We will work with the local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.