Brantwood Hall Care Home

Updated 9 December 2020

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 care homes with outbreaks of coronavirus, we are conducting reviews to ensure that the Infection Prevention and Control practice was safe and the service was compliant with IPC measures. This was a targeted inspection looking at the IPC practices the provider has in place.

This inspection took place on 25 November 2020 and was announced.

Updated 9 December 2020

The inspection of Brantwood Hall Care Home took place on 9 July 2018 and was unannounced. The home was previously inspected in April 2017 and was rated requires improvement with three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 regulations.

Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when, to improve the key questions safe, effective, responsive and well led, to at least good. During this inspection we found evidence of significant and sustained improvement resulting in better care for people living at Brantwood Hall.

Brantwood Hall is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates 29 people in one adapted building. On the day of the inspection 26 people were living at Brantwood Hall.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of the 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.

People were safe and felt comfortable living at Brantwood Hall. Staff were confident in how to report any safeguarding concerns and were also keen to stress they had not had any such concerns recently.

Risks were managed in such a way as to be least restrictive and promote people’s independence. Each risk was subject to a thorough analysis of how it affected the individual and then tailored risk reduction measures were put in place. We saw evidence of how these risks had been effectively diminished through a reduction in falls to people. Analysis of any incidents or accidents was equally person-focused, ensuring all relevant parties’ views were considered.

Although we observed some pressure points in the day due to demands on staff, people’s needs were met in a timely manner. People’s level of dependency was accurately recorded and the registered manager assured us cover was available in the case of short notice absence.

Medication administration was safe although we recommended to the registered manager a review of the lunchtime medication as it was not appropriate for this to be given while people were eating. The home was clean and staff wore appropriate protective clothing when required.

The registered manager had a comprehensive knowledge of evidence-based guidance and showed this in practice as did the staff. They had a range of resources to use and ensured this was implemented in a number of ways in everyday care delivery such as the use of specific therapies to reduce the risk of falls. This was also mirrored in the many and varied range of activities on offer for people to partake in which catered for differing needs and abilities, always promoting people making their own choices.

Staff had received an induction and regular supervision which looked at all aspects of care practice, and this was supported by training. This training was reflected in interactions we observed between staff and people in the home where staff were very respectful and attentive to people. Staff worked well as a team, supporting each other and ensuring people’s needs were met effectively. People were treated with respect and their dignity was promoted.

There had been significant improvements to the environment since the last inspection and this reflected people’s choice, including the newly opened ‘Blue Rinse’ hairdressing salon.

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.

Care records were person-centred and ensured staff had clear direction to follow to meet these needs in people’s preferred manner. Partnership working was evident in people’s records showing external support was requested and responded to as needed.

The service had only received two complaints and these had been dealt with appropriately, with agreed outcomes.

The registered manager provided the home with clear direction and sound leadership, ensuring the vision of empowering people to make their own choices was embedded in the culture with both people living in the home and the staff who worked there. The quality assurance systems provided a suitable framework from which to judge performance and the subsequent analysis allowed for proper reflection and targeted improvement.