We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bembridge House 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 Bembridge House, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
¿ Relatives told us staff were kind and caring. Staff were very attentive to people’s needs and ensured people were happy and took part in activities of their choice.
¿ The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. People's care was person-centred and the support people received from staff focused on promoting people's choice and control in how their needs were met.
¿ People were supported to access the healthcare services they required. Staff had sought guidance and support from different healthcare professionals to make sure they were providing care which met people's health needs.
¿ Staff had the right skills, experience and support to meet the needs of people who used the service. People were provided with a balanced diet with a choice of meals.
¿ The environment met people’s needs and people had different spaces they could enjoy, including a sensory room and large garden.
¿ People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.
¿ People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
¿ There were systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Improvements were made following robust checks on different areas of the service. Which promoted people's safety and quality of life.
Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published 24 November 2016).
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor this service and plan to inspect in line with our re-inspection schedule for those services rated Good.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
This inspection took place on 25 October 2016 and was unannounced. At a previous inspection which took place in December 2014 we found the provider did not meet the legal requirements for one of the areas we looked at. They wrote to us with an action plan of improvements that would be made. We found on this inspection the provider had taken all the steps to make the necessary improvements.
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.
There was a friendly and welcoming atmosphere in the home. We saw people smiling at staff and looking relaxed in their company. Each person had their own bedroom that had been decorated and personalised to suit their individual preferences.
People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and who understood each person’s care and support needs. People were receiving care which was responsive and tailored to their needs. Care plans were in place which clearly described how each person would like to receive their care and support. Records showed people and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care plans which were regularly reviewed and updated as required.
People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. Staff had received safeguarding vulnerable adults training and were aware of their responsibility to report any concerns. Policies and procedures were in place to advise staff on what they should do if they had concerns. Relatives said they felt their family member was safe living at Bembridge House. Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise these risks.
People were offered a healthy and balanced range of home cooked meals to suit their dietary needs and preferences. Staff told us people also occasionally enjoyed having a takeaway. People were supported by staff who understood their health needs. They worked closely with health and social care professionals to ensure people received appropriate treatment when required. Care plans contained detailed information about people’s health needs and the support needed by staff to maintain their wellbeing.
People led active lives and regularly went out. Care plans contained information about the person’s daily routines and the weekly activities they liked to participate in. During our inspection two people went out ice skating whilst other people took part in activities within the home. Other people also went out each week to day services and clubs.
Systems were in place for the safe storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed and in their preferred manner. People had access to healthcare services to maintain good health.
There were sufficient staff on duty to ensure people’s needs were met and they were supported to do their planned activities. We observed throughout the inspection that staff were unhurried and spent time engaging with people. Safe recruitment practices were followed before new staff were employed to work with people. People received individualised care and support from staff who had the skills, knowledge and understanding needed to carry out their roles.
Relatives told us the registered manager was approachable and they felt listened to when discussing their family member’s care needs. Staff told us the home was well-led with them having clear direction on service developments. The registered manager and provider had effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. They carried out checks and audits periodically throughout the year.
We carried out this inspection on 30 December 2014. The inspection was unannounced. During our last inspection on 26 September 2013 we found the provider to be in breach of Regulation 10, Assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. The provider wrote to us with an action plan of improvements that would be made to their monitoring processes. During this inspection we found the provider had taken steps to make the necessary improvements.
Bembridge House is run by the White Horse Care Trust, which has a number of care homes in Swindon and Wiltshire. The home provides care and support to adults with a learning and physical disability and associated health needs. The property is a detached bungalow, which has been designed to meet the needs of up to eight people.
At the time of our inspection the home did not have a registered manager. The management of the service was being overseen by a manager of another service provided by the White Horse Care Trust. They were supported by the home’s two deputy managers. Recruitment for a new manager was being undertaken. 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 found that records relating to the planning of people’s care required improvement in some areas. People’s care plans did not always reflect what care, support or treatment they required for staff to be responsive to their needs. We found this was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
Staff told us they felt supported by management. They said they had access to training which supported them to fulfil their role. Staff told us they received regular, formal supervision (one to one meetings with line managers) where they could discuss their professional development and roles. Records we reviewed showed that competencies had been completed regarding staff’s work performances and behaviour. However where it had been identified that staff were not meeting some competencies, actions needed to address this had not always been identified. Where some actions had been identified these had not been followed up to see if staff had made the required improvements. The staff had completed training to ensure that the care and support provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs.
New staff members received an induction which included shadowing experienced staff before working independently. Staff completed workbooks which covered topics relating to care. However records showed that whilst the workbooks had been completed they had not been marked. This meant that the manager had not signed staff as being competent following their induction period.
The interim manager had knowledge of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is where a person can be deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. They understood DoLS and where required had made applications to ensure people were supported appropriately.
People were protected from risks associated with their care because staff followed appropriate guidance and procedures. Staff understood the needs of the people they were supporting. We saw that care and support was provided in a considerate and compassionate manner. Relatives spoke positively about the home and the care and support provided.
People were supported to have a balanced diet which promoted healthy eating. There were arrangements for people to access specialist diets were required.
The interim manager and senior management had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. Audits covered a number of different areas such as care plans, infection control and health and safety. Staff were aware of the organisation’s visions and values and there was a positive culture where relatives felt included and their views sought.
The service provided a varied menu and supported people to have their nutritional needs met.
The service ensured there were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living in the home. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the communication skills required to promote choice and to maintain peoples dignity.
The home was clean and hygienic throughout and free from odours.
There were some shortfalls in the quality assurance processes in place to monitor and manage the quality of service delivery.
The house had equipment that was specifically designed for the needs of the people living there. The equipment included adjustable beds, hoists and a sensory room. We checked that it worked and was serviced regularly.
Staff were well trained and supported. We spoke with three staff and the manager and all told us that they felt they had the right amount of training to do their jobs. One person told us that 'it was one of the happiest places' they had worked.
Records were accurate and stored securely within the manager's office. Archived records were stored securely at head office.