Archived: Badbury Care Home

Updated 5 February 2019

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 site visit took place on 14 and 15 January 2019. The first day was unannounced and the second day announced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an expert by experience on day one and two inspectors on day two. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We reviewed monthly improvement progress plans the service had sent us.

We used the information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We spoke with eight people who used the service and two relatives. We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, operations director, activities co-ordinator, one senior carer, six staff and the chef. We received feedback from three health and social care professionals who worked with the service.

We reviewed six people’s care files, four medicine administration records, policies, risk assessments, health and safety records, consent to care and quality audits. We looked at four staff files, the recruitment process, complaints, training and supervision records.

We walked around the building and observed care practice and interactions between staff and people who live there. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) at meal times. SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 5 February 2019

The inspection took place on 14 and 15 January 2019 and was unannounced.

Badbury Care Home 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.

Badbury Care Home is registered to accommodate 33 older people. The home was split over two floors with the first floor having access via stairs or a lift. On the ground floor there are various lounges, smaller seating areas and a dining room. There was level access to the outside patio and garden areas. There were 24 people living at the service at time of inspection.

At our last inspection in November 2017 we rated the service ‘requires improvement’. At this inspection we found that improvements have been sustained and further positive developments have been made.

People were protected from avoidable harm as staff received training and understood how to recognise signs of abuse and who to report this to if abuse was suspected.

Staffing levels were adequate to provide safe care and recruitment checks had ensured staff were suitable to work with vulnerable adults. Staff had received an induction and continual learning that enabled them to carry out their role effectively.

Staff received regular supervision and felt supported and confident in their work.

When people were at risk staff had access to assessments and understood the actions needed to minimise avoidable harm.

Medicines were administered and managed safely by trained and competent staff. Medication stock checks took place together with daily and monthly audits to ensure safety with medicines.

People and their relatives had been involved in assessments of care needs and had their choices and wishes respected including access to healthcare when required. The service worked well with professionals such as doctors, occupational therapists and social workers.

People had their eating and drinking needs understood and were being met. People had mixed views about the quality, variety and quantity of the food.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The registered manager actively sought to work in partnership with other organisations to improve outcomes for people using the service.

People, their relatives and professionals described the staff as caring, kind and approachable. People had their dignity, privacy and independence respected.

People had their care needs met by staff who were knowledgeable about how they could communicate their needs. Their life histories were detailed and relatives had been consulted.

The home had an effective complaints process and people were aware of it and knew how to make a complaint. The service actively encouraged feedback from people, their relatives and professionals.

People’s end of life needs were assessed. The records showed that people and their relatives had been involved in these plans. Feedback received by the service showed that end of life care provided was of a good standard.

Activities were provided and these included staff, people and their relatives. Individual activities were provided for those that preferred them.

Relatives and professionals had confidence in the service. The home had an open and positive culture that encouraged the involvement of everyone.

Leadership was visible within the home. Staff spoke positively about the management team and felt supported.

There were effective quality assurance and auditing processes in place and they contributed to service improvements. Action plans were carried out and lessons learnt.

The service understood their legal responsibilities for reporting and sharing information with other services.