Archived: Baylham Care Centre Limited

Updated 26 October 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 checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 26 June and 4 July 2017 and was unannounced. It was undertaken by an inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who used or uses this type of care service. On this occasion your expert by experience was someone who had supported their parents before and after they had moved into residential care.

Before our inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service: what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at information we held about the service including notifications they had made to us about important events. We also reviewed all other information sent to us from other stakeholders for example the local authority and members of the public.

Many of the people living at the service were not able to tell us, in detail, their experiences of how they were cared for and supported because of their complex needs which included people living with dementia. However, we used the short observational framework tool (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas and we observed how people were supported to eat and drink at lunch time.

During our inspection we spoke with 12 people, five of their relatives, the registered manager, the provider and five care staff. We reviewed six care files, three staff recruitment files and their support records, audits and policies held at the service.

Updated 26 October 2017

Baylham Care Centre is a care home with nursing providing care and support for younger adults and older people, some of whom have complex health needs, and offers rehabilitation to enable people to recover their health and return to their own homes. The service has capacity to take up to 55 people, but routinely only uses only 51 of the rooms. At the time of our inspection there were 48 people living in the service, some of whom were living with dementia. This is a purpose built home that was designed with care to suit the needs of the people who would be living there.

At our last inspection on 23 July 2015, the service was rated good overall and required improvement in the safe key question, during that inspection we found that the service did not have suitable arrangements in place for the safe management of medicines. Nor were the medicines stored safely for the protection of people who used the service. At this inspection we found the service had promptly made the necessary changes to the way they managed and stored medicines and had made significant improvements in the quality of service they offered people overall. They were now offering an outstanding service to the people who lived at the Baylham Care Centre, the standard of care at the home was exceptional, innovative, person centred and creative.

The service had a registered manager. 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. Statutory notifications received showed us that the registered manager understood their registration requirements.

The people who lived in the service told us that they felt safe and very well cared for. They believed that the care workers were committed to caring for them to a high standard and knew what support they needed to be well looked after.

Staff were well trained and supported to meet people’s needs and to keep them safe. They were able to clearly describe their roles and responsibilities as well as the organisational structure and who they would go to for support if this was needed.The staff were highly motivated and there were ample numbers of staff on duty at every level to protect people from harm. Risks to people were assessed and steps had been put in place to safeguard people from harm without restricting their independence unnecessarily.

People were always asked for their consent by staff before supporting them in their day to day care. Staff were provided with training in safeguarding adults from abuse, Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager knew how to make a referral if required. People were supported to have maximum choice and full control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive ways possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People’s mealtime experiences were positive and an enjoyable part of their day. They were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet. They were also supported to maintain good health, regain abilities after serious illness and fully access healthcare services. The service also offered rehabilitation and physiotherapy to people and had their own in house physiotherapy and occupational therapist teams.

We saw many excellent examples of positive and caring interactions between the staff and people living in the service. Staff went out of their way to make people feel that they were the centre of attention and that they got what they needed to retain control of their lives and to have their say in the running of the service. People were able to express their views openly and staff listened to what they said and took action to ensure their decisions were acted on. The service had a dignity champion who promoted the protection of people’s privacy and dignity.

People received care that was extremely person centred and responsive to their needs. The service listened to people’s experiences. They took steps to investigate complaints and welcomed them as a tool to drive improvements in the service offered. However, compliments and praise outnumbered the number of complaints by far.

The service was led at an outstanding level by a passionate and committed registered manager. People using the service, their relatives and the staff all told us that the registered manager was open, supportive and had superior management skills. In turn the registered manager felt they were extremely well supported by the directors, who also gained praise from the people who lived in the service and their relatives. Outside professional agencies also judged the service as offering an excellent service and they had been given several awards. There were systems in place to monitor and maintain the high quality of service the organisation offered people.

Further information is in the detailed findings below