Archived: Barnfield

Updated 4 July 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 was 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 was an unannounced inspection that took place on the 8 June 2017. The inspection was carried out by three inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is someone who had experience of caring for someone who lives in this type of setting.

Prior to this inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service, including data about safeguarding and statutory notifications. Statutory notifications are information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

We asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to our last inspection. 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 reviewed the PIR again before this inspection to check if there were any specific areas we needed to focus on.

During the inspection we spoke to with the provider’s district manager, the registered manager and deputy manager and seven staff. We also spoke with 13 people, two relatives, two visitors and one health professional. We received feedback from one healthcare professional following our inspection.

We looked at a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. We looked at seven care plans, medication administration records, risk assessments, accident and incident records, complaints records and internal and external audits that had been completed. We also reviewed six staff recruitment files.

Following the inspection we received feedback relating to Barnfield from one health professional via email.

Updated 4 July 2017

Barnfield provides care and accommodation for up to 63 people, some who are elderly and frail, others who may be living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 59 people living in the home.

There was 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. The registered manager helped us during our inspection.

We last inspected Barnfield in June 2016 when we identified a breach of regulation relating to acting within the principals of the Mental Capacity Act. We found at this inspection this had improved.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We identified some areas in relation to people’s medicines that staff needed to improve in. The registered manager took immediate action to address this immediately following our inspection.

The registered manager told us that care records were being worked through as he was aware that these needed to accurately reflect people’s needs. Although we found some improvement was required in this area we were satisfied that people received the care they required despite some records not always reflecting this.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and action taken to help prevent reoccurrence. Where people had risks related to them, these had been identified and guidance was in place for staff.

People lived in an environment that the staff checked regularly to help ensure it was safe for them. Staff were knowledgeable in relation to their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding and the registered provider carried out checks to help ensure they only employed suitable staff to work in the home.

Staff supported people to eat a good range of foods and those with a specific dietary requirement were provided with appropriate food. People had access to external health services and professional involvement was sought by staff when appropriate to help maintain good health.

People were encouraged to take part in activities both in the communal lounge and also in individual living areas. People lived in a homely environment. People’s rooms were cosy and personalised and there was programme of redecoration taking place in the home.

We found the registered manager had good management oversight of the home and there was a good culture within the team. Staff told us they felt supported and valued and we found staff had the opportunity to meet with their line manager regularly to discuss their role. Staff received an induction when commencing within the home and their training was updated routinely to ensure staff continued to work to best practice.

There were a sufficient number of staff on duty and we did not see people needing to wait for attention. It was evident staff knew people well and respected people when they wished to have time alone. Staff were caring to people and there was easy going conversation between people and staff.

People, relatives and staff were involved in the running of the home. Regular meetings were held and a questionnaire circulated so people could give their views on the care provided. Where suggestions and ideas were raised these were listened to by the registered manager.

Staff and the registered provider undertook quality assurance audits to ensure the care provided was of a standard people should expect. Any areas identified as needing improvement were actioned. Regular fire checks and fire drills were carried out to help ensure staff would know what to do in the event of an emergency and there was a contingency plan in place should the home have to close.

A complaints procedure was available for any concerns. People and relatives could also leave positive comments and feedback.

During our inspection made two recommendations to the provider.