Archived: Briarfield House

Updated 23 March 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 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 took place on 7 February 2017 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the registered provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

During the inspection we spoke with seven people who lived at the service and four relatives. We looked at three care plans, and Medicine Administration Records (MARs). We spoke with five members of staff, including the registered manager, general manager, senior care workers and care workers. We also spoke with a visiting healthcare professional. We looked at three staff files, including recruitment records.

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 also completed observations around the service.

Updated 23 March 2017

This inspection took place on 7 February 2017. The service was last inspected on 18 December 2014, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Briarfield House is registered to provide residential care for twelve people and caters for the needs of older people. It is situated within its own grounds and there are twelve bedrooms, which are well appointed to provide comfortable living space.

Risks to people arising from their health and support needs and the premises were assessed, and plans were in place to minimise them.

There were systems in place to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed.

There was enough staff to meet people's needs. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. Staff told us they received training to be able to carry out their role. Staff received effective supervision and a yearly appraisal.

Staff understood safeguarding issues, and felt confident to raise any concerns they had in order to keep people safe.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, and people’s dietary needs and preferences were catered for. People and staff told us they had a choice of food at the service, and that they enjoyed it.

The service worked with external professionals to support and maintain people’s health. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The interactions between people and staff were cheerful and supportive. Staff were kind and respectful.

Care was planned and delivered in way that responded to people’s assessed needs. Plans contained detailed information on people’s personal preferences.

People had access to a range of activities, which they enjoyed.

The service had a clear complaints policy that was applied when issues arose.

The registered manager was a visible presence at the service, and was actively involved in monitoring standards and promoting good practice. The service had quality assurance systems in place which were used to drive continuous improvements.

Further information is in the detailed findings below: