Bradfield House

Updated 24 January 2019

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.

The inspection was a comprehensive inspection which took place on 28 November 2018 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours' notice of the inspection visit because the location was a small care home for adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be available to talk with us.

The inspection was carried out by one inspector. We spoke to the registered manager, three members of staff, the compliance director, four relatives and two people who live at the home. We completed observations in communal areas, due to the nature of people's needs, we were not able to ask everyone direct questions, but we did observe people as they engaged with their day-to-day tasks and activities. 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 pathway tracked the care of three people. Pathway tracking is where we check that the care detailed in individual plans matches the experience of the person receiving care. We reviewed records including; accident and incident logs, quality assurance records, compliments and complaints, policies and procedures and two records relating to staffing.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information relating to the home including correspondence from people, professionals, and notifications sent to us by the registered manager. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We also used information the provider sent to us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

After the inspection we spoke with a social care professional to gain their views of the service.

Updated 24 January 2019

Bradfield House is a residential 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. The home is registered for up to 10 people living with a learning disability, complex needs and autism.

At this inspection on 28 November 2018, there were 10 people living at the home. There were both young men and women living at the home. Accommodation is provided over two floors and people have their own rooms and en-suite bathrooms. People had access to two communal lounges, a dining area and garden.

The home had 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.

The care service has been developed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

The home remained safe. A relative told us, “My son is completely safe, when he visits us he is always happy to go back to the home, we know he must feel safe and content or he wouldn't want to be there.” Systems and processes were in place to safeguard people from abuse. Accidents and incidents continued to be recorded and analysed and action taken to improve and learn when issues were identified. Medicines management remained safe. The home was clean and people were protected from infection control risks.

People's needs and choices continued to be assessed before they moved into the home and regularly thereafter. Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and support and received a range of training opportunities. People were asked consent before being supported. People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People continued to be supported to maintain a balanced diet and had access to healthcare professionals when needed. People's needs were met by the design and adaptation of the building. People could move freely around the communal areas and the garden which were secure.

People continued to be treated with kindness and respect. A relative told us, “The staff are so very caring and know our son so well.” People were supported to be as independent and active as possible. People continued to be involved in decisions about their care and given support to express their views. Staff remained respectful of people’s privacy and people’s dignity was maintained.

People continued to receive care that was personalised and responsive to their needs. People were at the centre of care planning and fully involved in the process. People had access to a variety of activities that met their interests. There was a robust complaints policy in place.

Management of the home was robust and the culture was positive. A relative told us, “The home is very well managed, the manager is great and always on top of everything.” There was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere within the home. Systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service being delivered. Staff worked in partnership with other organisations to ensure people's needs were met.