Background to this inspection
Updated
2 July 2015
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.
We visited the service on 06 May 2015. Our inspection was unannounced and the inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal or professional experience of using this type of service.
During our inspection we spoke with 18 people who used the service and seven family members. We also spoke with the registered manager, 12 care staff, six ancillary staff including the cook, kitchen assistant and laundry staff. We observed care and support in communal areas, looked at the care records of eight people and records that related to how the service was managed.
We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.
Before our inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We reviewed notifications of incidents that the provider had sent us since the last inspection. We contacted local commissioners of the service, GPs and district nursing teams who supported some people who used the service to obtain their views about it.
Updated
2 July 2015
This was an unannounced inspection, carried out on 06 May 2015.
Broadoak Manor is situated in a residential area of St Helens with access to local buses. There are four units on the one site providing care and support to people. The service is owned by BUPA who provide a variety of health and social care services throughout the country.
The service has a registered manager. 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.
At the time of our inspection there were 97 people living at the service.
We carried out an inspection of Broadoak Manor in August 2014 and found that the service was not meeting the regulations we inspected. We took action against the provider which included setting a timescale to make improvements in relation to three regulations. We gave compliance actions in relation to two other regulations.
We carried out a further inspection in December 2014 to check on the progress in relation to the regulations we set timescales for and found they had been met. During this inspection we followed up on the compliance actions we gave the provider in August 2014 and found they had been met.
People who used the service felt safe. Staff had received safeguarding training and had access to safeguarding procedures. Staff knew about the procedures in place to protect people from the risk of harm and they knew how to recognise and respond to abuse correctly. The correct procedures had been followed when abuse was suspected or occurred.
People’s care and support needs were assessed and planned for. Regular reviews involving people who used the service and significant others ensured staff had all the information they needed to meet people’s current and changing needs. People’s care records accurately reflected their care and support needs and the care and support they had received.
People’s needs were met by sufficient numbers of staff. Recruitment procedures were safe and staff had received ongoing training and support to ensure they carried out their role effectively.
Medicines were managed safely and processes in place ensured that the administration and handling of medicines was suitable for the people who used the service.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We saw that there were policies and procedures in relation to the MCA and DoLS to ensure that people who could make decisions for themselves were protected. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about something, best interest meetings were held and documented in people’s care records.
People were offered a varied and healthy diet and people told us they had enough to eat and drink. People received the assistance they needed at meal times and those who were at risk of poor nourishment were closely monitored.
Staff were kind, caring and patient in their approach. Staff knew people well and formed good relationships with them and their family members.
The provider supported and encouraged learning and the staff team had the required skills and knowledge to care for the diverse and complex needs of the people who used the service.
People’s interests and hobbies were recorded and they were offered a range of indoor activities. However people commented that there had not been given the opportunity to access the community and it was something they would like to do.
People were made aware of how to make a complaint if required and complaints were listened to and acted upon in a timely way.
People described the manager as supportive and approachable and they felt that the service was well managed. There were systems in place to regularly check the quality of the service provided and to ensure improvements to the service were made.