The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Brandon Park Residential and Nursing Home

Overall: Outstanding read more about inspection ratings

Brandon Country Park, Bury Road, Brandon, Suffolk, IP27 0SU (01842) 812400

Provided and run by:
Stowlangtoft Healthcare LLP

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile
Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

10 July 2017

During a routine inspection

Brandon Park Residential and Nursing Home is a residential care home with nursing that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 55 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 44 people living in the service when we inspected on 10 July 2017. This was an unannounced inspection. This inspection was prompted in part by notification of an incident following which a person living at the service died. This incident is subject to a coroner’s investigation and as a result this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident. However, the information shared with CQC about the incident indicated potential concerns about the management of risk. This inspection examined those risks.

At the last inspection in January 2016, the service was rated as Good, with Effective being rated as Requires Improvement. This was due to improvements being needed to staff training and nutrition care record keeping. At this inspection we found that the necessary improvements had been made and significant improvements made. We have rated the service Outstanding in responsive and Outstanding in well led making the overall rating for the service Outstanding.

The home was extremely responsive to people’s needs. People received exceptionally personalised care and support which they were in control of. Activities were planned by staff who worked closely with people to establish their individual and unique preferences. People were supported to take part in activities of their choosing.

There was an exceptionally strong ethos within the home of treating people as individuals and with respect. People were at the forefront of their care. Information was given to people about how to raise any concerns they may have and where concerns were raised these were dealt with speedily and in detail. Relatives said they felt welcomed at the service and felt their family member was very well cared for.

There were very effective systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the care provided. People felt able to raise any concerns and be confident they would be addressed. Where concerns were raised by people, relatives or through regular auditing we saw the staff took them seriously and took appropriate actions to focus on learning and improvement for the benefit of the people using the service.

Excellent leadership was demonstrated at all levels with a pro-active effort to encourage ideas from people and staff to further benefit people living at the home. The staff were very happy working in the home and felt extremely supported in their role. They were clear about their individual roles and responsibilities and felt highly valued by the management team. The home was organised and well run and the culture was open and transparent.

The registered manager and provider strived for excellence and improving the lives of people who lived at the home through involvement with external organisations and the local community.

There was a registered manager in post 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.

There were systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm. Accidents and incidents were investigated as required and known risks were recorded and mitigated when possible. Staff had been recruited safely and relevant checks were completed before they commenced working within the home.

Staff knew about and were following the guidance in people's risk assessments and care plans to keep people safe. People's records were up to date and indicated that care was being provided as detailed in people's assessments.

There continued to be sufficient numbers of staff employed to make sure people received the support they needed, and those staff had been safely recruited. People told us they felt safe living at the home. People received their medicines when they needed them.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff assisted them in the least restrictive way possible. They demonstrated a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Care records detailed people's consent to their care and each area of their support contained decision specific best interest’s assessments.

People's health needs were met as the staff and manager promptly engaged with other healthcare agencies and professionals to ensure people's identified health care needs were met and to maintain people's safety and welfare.

People’s care was delivered by kind and caring staff who sought to meet their needs and ensure they were happy. We saw that people had friendly relationships with staff who would stop and speak with them as they moved around the home.

25 January 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The inspection took place on the 25 January 2016 and was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection. At the last comprehensive inspection on the 15 January 2015 we rated this service as requires improvement. Improvements were required in three out of the five key lines of enquiry we inspect against, and we identified a number of breaches in the following areas: medication administration, Mental capacity and records. During this inspection we saw improvements had been made in the management and running of the service and felt people’s care needs were being met.

The service provides residential and, or nursing care to up to 55 people. On the day of our inspection there were 39 people living in the service. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The manager was experienced and being well supported by a deputy manager and the providers of the service who were in regular contact and completed regular quality audits of the service. We had every confidence that where improvements were identified these had either already been identified or were being addressed immediately.

Staffing was adequate for the needs of the people using the service and we were reassured that staffing levels were reviewed in line with occupancy rates and individual assessments of need. Staff spoken with were kind, confident and for the most part well trained. Some staff felt the induction for new staff could be improved upon depending on the level of experience staff had and some of the mandatory training required updating. Staff felt well supported but the frequency of supervision and records of direct observations of practice also required improvement. However we were confident that staff were familiar with people’s needs and the management team now in place were making improvements to the service.

Staff understood their responsibilities and how to safeguard people in their care. Staff understood legislation around safeguards and capacity and acted in people’s best interest. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards when implemented correctly ensures that, where people lack capacity to make decisions for themselves, decisions are made in their best interests according to a structured process.

Medication practices were mostly robust but could benefit from more audits and a review of processes to ensure people received their medicines as intended.

People’s health care needs were met and relationships with other health care providers were improving. Some staff said they would benefit from additional training to help them meet the specific health care needs of individuals such as people with Parkinson’s.

People were mostly supported to eat and drink enough for their needs but this was not always adequately recorded. People’s dining room experience was positive. People had enough to occupy them and staff helped to promote people’s well-being through social stimulation.

Records of people’s needs were adequate and showed that people’s needs were assessed and a plan put in place to show how needs and risks should be addressed. These were kept under review.

The provider was proactive in monitoring the service to determine where improvements were required and developing care and support which was centred around the needs of the people using the service.

Relationships with the local community, other health care professionals and relatives were being developed to help enhance people’s experiences.

15 December 2014

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on the 15 December 2014 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this home since the new providers took over in July 2014.

The home provides accommodation for up to 55 people and accommodates people who require nursing or personal care. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Improvements are required in how people receive their medicines to ensure they receive them safely and medicines in stock are correctly recorded to ensure there are enough medicines for people as prescribed.

People were supported to eat and drink and their individual dietary needs were accommodated. However gaps in their records did not show us how staff were effectively monitoring people at risk of not eating or drinking enough for their needs.

People without capacity to make decisions about their care and welfare were not adequately supported by staff and we could not see how staff were acting within the law to support people properly.

Care records did not always provide sufficient information to staff about how to meet people’s needs and in some instances there were no records telling staff how to provide specific care to people, such as a night time, which meant staff unfamiliar with people’s needs would not know enough about the person’s needs.

Staff knew how to recognise and report concerns if they suspected someone to be at risk of harm or possible abuse so could protect people from actual or further harm as possible.

The environment was appropriate to people’s needs and renovations being carried out were being done carefully to minimise the level of disruption caused to people living at the home. The numbers of people currently using the home was reduced because of the refurbishment. Once the renovations are completed the facilities within the home will be significantly improved.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and the provider continued to recruit staff in anticipation that additional people with be moving to the home. New admissions to the home were being carefully planned and staffing levels would be adjusted accordingly.

Staff were observed to be kind and caring and promoted people’s independence and dignity. They met people’s needs in a timely, unhurried way.

Staff were sufficiently knowledgeable and had enough training for their job role. Staff felt very well supported and felt the management style was very open, supportive and consultative.

People’s emotional well-being was supported by caring staff and staff regularly engaged people in activities of their choice. All staff were involved in providing activities and the home employed a full time activities coordinator who planned with people how they would like to occupy their day. The home was increasing its participation with the local community to help people retain links with their community.

Staff and the manager were open and friendly and made visitors welcome. Visitors told us they were treated well when they arrived at the home. The atmosphere was relaxed and people said they received good care.

There were systems in place to measure the effectiveness of the service. We saw examples of how the service was being improved as a result of feedback received from both people using the service and their relatives.