Broadfield House Home for Older People

Updated 9 June 2021

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 14 May 2020 and was announced. It was announced because it occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic and checks were made at the service before inspection to ensure it was safe to proceed.

Updated 9 June 2021

Broadfield House is operated by Lancashire County Council Older Peoples Services, which is part of Lancashire County Council. Broadfield House is a purpose built two storey building situated in Leyland and close to local amenities. The home has 17 beds for people with dementia, 13 beds for people with physical conditions and 16 community beds or step up, step down beds. These 16 beds from part of Lancashire county Council's Intermediate Care Provision, and are used by people who are not ready to return home following a hospital stay, or by people who require some short term care and support rather than permanent residential care or hospital admission.

The hope is that people who use the "step up, step down" beds would return to their own homes following a stay at Broadfield House. If following an assessment of people's needs, more intensive care and support was found to be required, then appropriate placements would be found for individuals. The accommodation within the home is divided into four separate areas. Each area is self -contained and provides comfortable lounge and dining areas along with bedrooms and bathrooms.

At the last inspection on 29 October 2014 (final report published 31 March 2015), the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

At the last inspection, we recommended that separate assessments are always conducted where risks are identified, which outline the strategies implemented to help to protect those who live at the home. We found that risk assessments were undertaken, and the findings built into people’s care plans, so as to ensure that their safety was promoted and protected.

We also recommended that a formal audit of staff files be conducted, so that an organised system be operated, with information being accurately recorded and therefore making details easily accessible. We found that these records were now in an organised format. Recruitment processes included checks so that only suitable staff were employed, and information held by the service was accurate and up to date.

We found that staff knew how to recognise any potential abuse to keep people safe. Potential risks to people were identified and measures were in place to minimise them. People received their medicines as prescribed, however, we recommended that all staff who administer were briefed on and reminded of the home's medicines policy and procedure. There were sufficient numbers of staff to care for people in a safe way. The service was clean and working practices were in place to minimise the spread of any infection.

Where people needed to be deprived of their liberty to live in the home, applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) had been made. Staff were supporting people in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. People's ability to make decisions about specific aspects of their life were regularly assessed and kept under review. When people could not make decisions for themselves this was done in line with the principles of the MCA.

We found that people’s health care needs were assessed and monitored and advice was sought from healthcare professionals when required. People's dietary needs were met and they had access to food options that promoted their health and wellbeing. People were supported by staff, who had been appropriately trained to understand their needs, and the needs of people living with dementia had been taken into consideration in the design of the environment. We saw that staff communicated effectively with people and treated them with kindness, compassion and respect. People's privacy and dignity was respected by staff. Staff showed concern for people’s well-being in a caring and meaningful way and responded appropriately to their needs.

We found that people and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and complaints. People's care plans had been developed to include people’s life history and what was important to them. We saw people were encouraged to participate in meaningful activities, which were person centred.

We found documentary evidence to show that the quality of the service was monitored through regular audits that were effective in highlighting areas requiring further improvement. The management team were clear and about the vision and values of the service and led by example.

People’s and relatives views about the service were sought and acted on. We recommended that discussions between the management team at Broadfield House and their health service colleagues continued, so that movement between services was well managed in order to prevent potentially inappropriate admissions.