Archived: Brackenfield Hall

Two adult social care inspectors carried out this inspection. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

There were risk assessments in place where required for people who used the service in relation to their support and care provision. This meant actions could be taken to minimise any risks, whilst at the same time, taking the least restrictive option in consultation with people or when best interest decisions had been made.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff analysed and learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Appropriate action was taken to minimise the risk of further events and help the service to continually improve.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant that appropriate safeguards were in place to protect people.

People were cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection because staff were provided with appropriate training and guidelines which were followed. People who used the service and their family members comments about cleanliness and hygiene were positive. People who lived at the service told us they thought the home was kept really clean. One person commented that their clothes were washed 'very nicely'.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the systems and processes in place to manage medicines were effective in practice. Family members of people who used the service told us staff gave their relatives their medication. One family member had seen staff do this and said they had 'no concerns'. Another family member explained the service had arranged for the medication to be prescribed in liquid form because their family member was refusing to take tablets.

There were enough members of staff to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them and people and/or their family members were involved in their care plan. The support people received promoted a good quality of life for people using the service.

Comments about the service included, 'it's alright. We need more activity, because a lot go to sleep. I like to keep busy ' you can't sit about all day doing nothing. I love a bath. I feel a lot safer here than I did at home', 'I'm very happy here. Never been happier. Girls are smashing. I enjoy sitting and watching everything happen', 'if you compare [my family member] before they came in you'd see they've put on weight, look well and healthy. We have no concerns about her care and welfare. She is provided with excellent food, she gets her hair done and sees the doctor and chiropodist when needed. We're kept informed if she's unwell and they're very much on the ball with getting her to hospital if needed. We can see she really likes staff and responds well to them. We are really pleased she is here and safe. A very high level of personal hygiene is kept', 'I think it's alright. There's no restrictions and people look happy' and 'I think it's very good. People get good care and attention. When people 'spill' down their clothes they're encourage to change. They provide special cutlery to help people eat their meals. Staff are good at reminding people to use their walking aids and contact us immediately if [relative] falls. They get medics in if needed. We're happy with things, otherwise we'd move [relative]'.

Is the service caring?

We saw staff engaging with people who used the service. This demonstrated positive relationships had developed. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion when providing their day to day care and responded in a caring way to people's needs. Our observations of staff demonstrated that they had a clear knowledge of people's individual likes and preferences.

Is the service responsive?

Services were organised so that they met people's needs. People did completed activities inside and outside of the service and were supported to maintain relationships with family members. Staff responded promptly to any changes in people's needs and care plans were updated accordingly.

People and relatives told us they felt staff met their needs and provided suitable care in line with their requirements. Comments from people and their representatives included, 'my mother has a history of falls and perhaps does take more watching than some of the more agile residents. I have found the level of care exceptional. The staff are so attentive and considerate with her needs' and 'I was very apprehensive about my father going in to care but staff were very sensitive to his needs and concerns and he settled in quickly'.

Is the service well-led?

The leadership, management and governance of the organisation was focused on the delivery of person-centred care. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service encouraged an open and transparent culture, promoting communication with people, staff and other stakeholders.

Staff felt supported by the manager and felt they were able to raise any concerns with her.

Discussions with staff demonstrated that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Our review of records and conversations with staff showed us that discussions about best practice, improved ways of working and incident reviews were common throughout formal team meetings and informal discussions.

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified actions were addressed within identified timescales.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.