Background to this inspection
Updated
15 July 2016
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.
This inspection took place on 20 and 21April 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service.
Prior to our inspection we reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and information received. We contacted commissioners (who fund the care for some people) of the service and Healthwatch Nottinghamshire to obtain their views about the care provided about the service.
During the inspection we observed staff interacting with the people they supported and spoke with five people who used the service, three relatives, three members of the care staff, the day to day manager of the home and the registered manager. After the inspection with spoke with one health care professional and one community support worker.
We looked at the care records for three people who used the service, recruitment records of two staff and other records relating to the management of the service. Additionally, we looked at other records relating to the running of the service such as policies, procedures and audits.
Updated
15 July 2016
We carried out an unannounced inspection of the service on 20 and 21 April 2016. Broadlands Residential Home is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 16 people. At the time of the inspection there were 14 older people including some living with dementia using the service.
At the previous inspection on 4 September 2014 we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to the areas of maintenance to the building, people’s care records and systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service people received. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in these areas.
We found the carpets had been replaced, two bedrooms had been completely redecorated, other bedrooms had been painted and there was new furniture in the lounge. An annual development and maintenance plan was in place for the next year so further improvements could be made.
Systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the service were in place. Satisfaction surveys had been completed by people who used the service and relatives and requests acted upon. Resident, relative and staff meetings had taken place.
The service had a registered manager in place 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.
People told us they felt safe. Staff had attended safeguarding adults training, could identify different types of harm and knew the procedure for reporting concerns. Relatives said that their relations were safe. People were supported by an appropriate number of staff and they were recruited through safe recruitment practices. People received care promptly when requesting assistance.
People’s medicines were not always managed safely. People were not always given information about the medicines that they were taking.
Members of staff were given an induction to prepare them for the role and they received regular support and supervision to help them carry out their role.
The Care Quality Commission (CQC) is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. People’s care records showed that mental capacity assessments were in place for a variety of decisions and applications had been completed appropriately for people and under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).
Not all staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards . This put people at risk of not receiving care and support that is in their best interest.
People were provided with a varied, balanced diet with a variety of choices available. People’s day to day health needs were met by the staff and external professionals.
People and their relatives told us that the staff were very caring. People were supported to contribute to decisions relating to their care. People who used the service were at ease with members of staff and they both spoke openly and warmly to each other. Information was available for people about how to access and receive support from an independent advocate. People’s privacy and dignity was respected.
Activities were offered but these were limited. People were involved in their care and their care records were written in a person-centred way that took into account people’s strengths and support needs .Care plans were reviewed regularly and changes recorded. The complaints policy was accessible for everyone and people knew how to make a complaint.
The management team were visible and approachable with staff and people who used the service. They encouraged open communication with people who used the service, relatives, visitors and staff. Staff told us that they would be confident to raise any issues, concerns or suggestions. There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.