Archived: Buckwood View

We found the following examples of good practice.

The premises were clean and well-maintained. Staff followed cleaning schedules to ensure all areas of the home were regularly cleaned, including high touch areas such as door handles and light switches.

Staff had received recent training in infection prevention and control, including how to put on and take off their personal protective equipment (PPE) in a safe manner.

We observed staff changed PPE when appropriate, and staff regularly washed and sanitised their hands.

People’s rooms were individual and they all had en-suite facilities so people could be safely isolated if they became infectious.

Tests for COVID-19 were being carried out in line with good practice guidance, where possible.

Visits to the home were restricted at the time of this inspection, in accordance with local infection control guidance. During this time staff were supporting people to stay in contact with their relatives and friends via the telephone.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Buckwood View is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 14 people at the time of the inspection. The care home can accommodate 18 people in six separate buildings. There is a large shared communal lounge and kitchen, as well as separate smaller lounges and kitchens in each bungalow: an additional building is used for group activities.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

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

Systems, processes and practices ensured people were safeguarded from abuse. Risk assessments were detailed and people were supported to stay safe whilst supporting their independence. Staff rotas were planned according to people’s needs. Best practice guidelines supported the safe administration of medicines. Procedures were in place to ensure people were protected by the prevention and control of infection. The service monitored incidents to support learning from these and to track improvements.

People’s needs and choices were assessed in line with best practice guidance. Staff received regular and up-to-date training. People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. Checks and processes were in place to ensure staff work together and with other services to support effective care, support and health support. People’s individual needs were met by the adaptation of the service, personal spaces were decorated according to the person’s wishes. Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation and guidance.

Observations showed staff interacted with people with kindness and compassion; there was an easy jovial atmosphere throughout the home. People’s care plans detailed how people were supported to express their views and were actively involved in decision making as far as possible. Care plans detailed how people’s privacy and dignity was respected and promoted.

Daily notes showed how people received personalised care which was responsive to their individual needs. People’s concerns were recorded, a ‘you said, we did’ record showed how these were listened and responded to. People were supported at the end of their life; their wishes were recorded and met.

There was a strong ethos of individual care for people. The governance framework supported this and the registered manager understood their regulatory requirements. People, relatives and staff were involved in the running of the service. The service worked with partner organisations to continuously improve.

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.

The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

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 good (published 18 April 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Buckwood View is a purpose built home providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. The accommodation is for up to eighteen people with learning disabilities. There are six houses at the service, an office building and a day service base, which are all situated in a small cul-de-sac.

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.

The service also had a care and support administrator, who worked for The Guinness Partnership Limited (the registered provider) and worked in partnership with the registered manager who was employed by Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation Trust. Part of the role of the Care and Support Administrator was to ensure the building was well maintained, that repairs were reported and resolved and to deal with financial matters.

People who used the service verbally told us and communicated to us that they felt safe living in the home. Their relatives spoke positively about the standard of care and support their family member received.

We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely.

People, relatives and staff said there was sufficient staff to meet people’s needs safely and effectively.

Staff recruitment procedures were thorough and ensured people’s safety was promoted.

Staff were receiving regular training and supervision so they were skilled and competent to carry out their role.

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.

People had access to a range of health care professionals to help maintain their health.

People enjoyed the food provided and were supported to receive adequate food and drink to remain healthy.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Support plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported and people were involved in making decisions about their care.

We found staff were responsive to meet people’s health and social needs.

We saw people participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home which were meaningful and helped promote independence.

People living at the home, and their relatives said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to.

Staff told us they felt they had a very good team. Staff said the registered manager was approachable and communication was good within the service.

Buckwood View is a purpose built home providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. The accommodation is for up to eighteen people with learning disabilities. There are six houses at the service, an office building and a day service base, which are all based in a small cul-de-sac.

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.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about what to do if they suspected or witnessed abuse. They told us they received training in this area.

People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way. Medicines were stores correctly and staff ordered medication on a four week basis to ensure medicines were always available as prescribed.

The provider had a recruitment system in place and completed pre-employment checks. There were enough staff available to meet people’s needs and staff worked well as a team.

Support plans we looked at contained risk assessments, highlighting any risks associated with the persons care and how best to manage the risk presented.

Staff told us they were supported by the management team and received appropriate training which gave them the confidence to carry out their role.

The service was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff were knowledgeable about assisting people to make decisions in the person’s best interest.

People were involved in menu planning. We saw lots of snack and drinks available throughout the day.

People were referred to health care professionals when required. This was recorded in the persons support plan.

Through our observations it was clear that people had a good relationship with the staff and we were told they were supportive and compassionate. We saw that staff respected people’s privacy and dignity by knocking on bedroom doors, closing bathroom and toilet doors and by addressing people in a quiet, gentle manner. The service had two privacy and dignity champions in place that was responsible for promoting dignity and respect within the service.

We looked at support files belonging to four people who used the service. We found that they reflected the needs of people and stated how best to support the person. Support plans were person centred and pictures were used where required to assist the person in understanding their plan.

People were actively involved in interests to suit them. The service had three activity co-ordinators and one of them was on duty on the day of our inspection.

The provider had a complaints procedure. We spoke with relatives who said they would speak with the nurses or the management team if they had a concern.

We spoke with the care and support administrator, who worked for The Guinness Partnership Limited (the provider) and worked in partnership with the registered manager who was employed by Sheffield Health and Social Care NHS Foundation trust. The role of the Care and Support Administrator was to ensure the building was well maintained and that repairs were reported and resolved and to deal with financial matters.

During our inspection we saw the registered manager interacted well with staff and people who used the service. Her office door was always open.

We saw audits took place to ensure policies and procedures were being followed.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities and knew when to escalate things to their line manager and when to ask for guidance and support.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who lived at the home and their relatives, speaking with the staff working at the home, talking to and reviewing information from other authorities from looking at records at the service.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

There were risk assessments in place for people who used the service in relation to their support and care provision. People were not put at unnecessary risk and they had choices. People remained in control of their own decisions. Where people could not fully make informed choices they had access to advocacy support. This meant that people’s independence was promoted and they were not restricted from engaging in and accessing the wider community. A person’s relative said, “His care plan and risk assessments are very detailed and they are regularly reviewed with us his family and his social worker.”

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS]. The manager said there were no current applications submitted under this legislation. Staff received relevant training and were able to describe the Act and when a DoLS application would be necessary. This meant that people were safeguarded appropriately in line with current legislation.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practices were identified and people were protected. This reduced the risk to people and helped the service to continually improve.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Recruitment practices were safe, thorough and effective. There were procedures in place to ensure staff were suitable for their role.

Is the service effective?

People living at the home had access to advocacy services which meant when required, people could access additional support. Several people who did not have relatives had an appointed Independent Mental Capacity Advocate [IMCA] who represented them and acted as their voice.

People’s health and care needs were assessed and their support plans were compiled with the help of individuals and/or their advocates. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. Relatives said that their loved ones support reflected their current needs.

Other professionals and individuals were involved in regular meetings and reviews with each individual to ensure that their care and support was still appropriate.

Is the service caring?

During our inspection we saw that people seemed very comfortable in the presence of staff and were very tactile with staff.

Relatives we spoke with had also noted this relationship between their loved ones and staff and said,” I obviously know him [relative] very well he has a genuine affection for the staff, he adores them. I feel so comfortable with him being at Buckwood View.”

We spoke with four relatives and they all confirmed that they were very happy with the care provided. Relatives said, “Absolutely delighted, we are very happy with the care he receives,” “outstanding staff, they really look after him,” and “staff are like friends, it’s the best care setting he has ever been resident in.”

People’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people’s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service on a daily basis. People were assisted to access the community and attend day services.

Relatives of people knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy and said they would tell the manager. They commented, "I would soon say if I was unhappy, I had a couple of niggles in the past and the manager sorted them straight away.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The quality assurance system at the home showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. This meant action to improve the service was in place.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Discussions on best practice, improved ways of working and incidents reviews were common throughout formal team meetings and informal discussions.