Broughton House and College

Updated 12 September 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

There were two inspectors who undertook this inspection. Two inspectors attended the service on the first day of the inspection and one inspector attended the service on the second day of the inspection.

Service and service type

Broughton House is a ‘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 service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had about the service prior to our inspection. This included previous inspection reports, details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse and accidents. We spoke with the local authority quality monitoring team who work with the service.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

During the inspection we spoke with six relatives to ask about their experience of the care provided. 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 spoke with eight members of care staff, and a housekeeper. We also spoke with the deputy manager and the registered manager. We reviewed a range of records. This included six care records, medication records and five staff files. We also looked at the training matrix, audits, accident records and records relating to the management of the home.

Updated 12 September 2019

Broughton House is located in the small rural village of Brant Broughton. It is registered to provide services for up to 30 people with learning disabilities, aged between 16 and 25 years old. The service was provided over five units.

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.

The service was registered for the support of up to 30 people. Twenty nine people were using the service. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the design of the buildings. The service was provided over five separate units. One unit accommodated nine people, two units accommodated six people each and two units accommodated four people each. The living spaces were designed to give people space and privacy. The outside space provided large areas for people to safely spend time.

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

People were extremely well supported by an effective management team and staff group at the service. The staff worked in an open and transparent way, using their quality monitoring processes to provide excellent care for people. The communication and collaboration between people, relatives, staff and the supporting multidisciplinary team meant people received outstanding personalised care which had positive impacts on their daily lives. One relative said, “The leadership is outstanding.” They went on to say the team were responsive and empathetic.

Staff had excellent knowledge of the people they supported. They used that knowledge to care for people in a positive and empowering way. People’s independence, social and life skills were enhanced by the knowledge and attitude of staff who supported them. People were actively encouraged to expand their horizons and develop in whatever way they could. All achievements were celebrated and shared with people’s families in an inclusive way.

We found a caring and empathetic staff group who enjoyed working with the people they supported. Relatives told us there was excellent communication from staff about all aspects of their family member’s care. Families were welcomed at the service and felt their relations were treated with care and respect by the staff. Our observations of the interactions between people and staff supported this. Relatives views on their family member’s care were used to provide personalised care, and they were encouraged and welcomed to take part in regular reviews of people’s care.

People’s nutritional needs were well managed, and their different dietary needs were met. People were well supported with all their health needs through established systems of care using the provider’s multidisciplinary health professional team, and the well-established links with the local healthcare team.

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.

People lived in an environment that was regularly cleaned and maintained to meet their needs. They were supported by a staff group who received appropriate training to support them in their roles.

There were robust safeguarding systems in place which were used effectively by staff who showed an excellent knowledge of their roles in protecting the people in their care. The management team had robust processes in place to ensure learning from incidents and events to reduce future risk or reoccurrence. The risks to people’s safety were comprehensively and positively assessed to ensure people were both protected from harm, and could enjoy a full range of life activities safely.

People were supported by a strong staff group who had been through a safe recruitment process, and who received regular monitoring and support from the management team.

People’s medicines were managed safely by a staff group who had received the appropriate training for their role.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

The last rating for this service was Good (3 January 2018)

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about a possible safeguarding incident.