Archived: Burrows House

Updated 13 May 2016

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 2 and 3 March 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two adult social care inspectors. Before the inspection we looked at the information we held about the home including notifications they had sent us.

We spoke with four people who used the service, two relatives, five members of staff, the deputy manager and the registered manager. We reviewed records, including the care records of the six people who used the service, three staff members' recruitment files and training records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the service such quality audits, accident and incident records and policies and procedures. We spent time observing the care and support delivered to people and the interactions between staff and people using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 13 May 2016

This inspection took place on 2 and 3 March 2016 and was unannounced. At the last inspection of the service we found the provider was meeting the regulations we looked at.

Burrows House is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 54 elderly people including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 50 people living at the home.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

We found that medicines were not always administered safely and effectively. Arrangements for the administration of covert medicines were not always followed in line with the provider’s policy. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

People using the service said they felt safe and that staff treated them well. Safeguarding adult's procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and the provider conducted appropriate recruitment checks before staff started work. The provider had carried out appropriate pre-employment checks to ensure staff were suitable and fit to support people using the service.

Staff received appropriate training and supervision. They asked people for their consent before they provided care, and demonstrated a clear understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and how these should be met. People and relatives said staff looked after people in a way which was kind, caring and respectful. Staff knew how to ensure that people received care and support in a dignified way and which maintained their privacy at all times. Staff supported people, where appropriate, to retain as much control and independence about their lives as possible, when carrying out activities and tasks.

People’s weight was not always monitored, food and fluid charts were not put in place and people were not referred to appropriate healthcare professionals such as the GP.

People were appropriately supported by staff to make decisions about their care and support needs. Care plans had been developed which reflected people's needs and their individual choices and preferences for how they received care. People's care and support needs were reviewed regularly.

People were supported to undertake activities of their choosing. The provider had developed good links with organisations in the community to increase the range of activities people could participate in.

Relatives and people knew how to complain if they wished and were given the opportunity to voice their views

People and relatives said the service was well managed. People and relatives were satisfied with the way the provider dealt with their concerns or issues and said senior staff were approachable and willing to listen.

The provider sought people's views about how the care and support people received could be improved.