Archived: Bursted Houses

Updated 23 June 2017

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 15 and 16 May 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector on both days of the inspection. Prior to the inspection we looked at all the information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications that the provider had sent to CQC. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law.

The provider had also completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We used this information to help inform our inspection planning.

During the inspection we spoke with three people and two relatives to seek their views on how the service was run. Where people were not able to communicate verbally, we spent time observing the support they received and their interactions with staff. We spoke with six staff and the registered manager. We also looked at records, including six people’s support plans, five staff recruitment files, staff training and supervision records and other records relevant to the running of the service.

Updated 23 June 2017

This inspection took place on 15 and 16 May 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection of the service in September 2016 we found that the provider was meeting regulatory requirements and the service was rated ‘Good’. Bursted Houses provides accommodation and support for up to 22 people with learning disabilities across four separate units. At the time of our inspection the service was providing support to 18 people.

The service had 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At this inspection we found a breach of regulations because pressure relieving equipment was not always used safely. Improvement was required because systems were not in place to monitor the use of pressure relieving equipment to ensure it was safely used, and action had not always been taken in response to audit findings to improve the quality and safety of the service. Improvement was also required to ensure the service consistently complied with any conditions placed on people’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations.

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of the action to take if they suspected abuse had occurred. Medicines were administered to people as prescribed and were stored securely. The provider followed safe recruitment practices when employing new staff and there were sufficient staff deployed within the service to meet people’s needs.

Staff received an induction when starting work at the service and were supported in their roles through training and regular supervision. People were supported to access a range of healthcare services when required and to maintain a balanced diet. Staff were aware of the importance of seeking consent from the people they supported and worked within the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) where people had been assessed as lacking capacity to make decisions for themselves.

People and relatives told us that staff were caring and considerate. Staff treated people with dignity and respected their privacy. People were involved in day to day decisions about their care and treatment and people and relatives also had involvement in their support planning. Support plans included information about people’s individual needs and preferences.

The provider had guidance in place on how to raise complaints in formats suitable for people’s needs. People and relatives told us they knew how to raise a complaint should they need to do so. Staff spoke positively about the management of the service and told us they worked well as a team. People and relatives’ views on the service were sought through an annual survey and the feedback received by the service indicated they were happy with the care and support they received.