About the service:

Bradbury House provides planned and emergency short term respite care for up to ten people with a learning disability, some of whom may have additional physical care needs. There were four people having short term care.

People’s experience of using this service:

Protocols for medicines to be administered “when requires” (PRN) lacked detail. We recommend the service review and update medicine procedures.

The in-house induction for new staff did not follow Care Certificate standards. This meant the induction for new staff was not comprehensive.

We recommend that the service finds out more about in-house training for new staff which must be based on current best practice.

The home was recently audited by an external company. There were a number of recommendations made in line with the inspection findings. The registered manager said action was being taken. However, an improvement plan was not developed on how the recommendations will be actioned.

The quality of the care plans had improved since the last inspection. Care plans lacked agreed goals although they were clear on people's abilities and how staff were to assist the person in their preferred manner. There was little evidence that where relevant people were supported to maintain and develop their independence.

People were safeguarded from abuse. The staff had attended safeguarding training and knew the procedures to follow where there were concerns of abuse.

Risks were assessed and where they were identified action plans were developed on how to reduce the potential of harm to people.

Staffing levels were good. There were existing vacancies and staffing levels were maintained with relief and existing staff covering vacant shifts.

Systems were in place to support staff with developing their skills and to monitor their performance.

There was a process for referrals for respite care. Staff told us there were visits organised before respite care was offered.

People's capacity was assessed, and best interest decisions taken where people lacked capacity.

Menus were devised and were adapted to the people that were on respite care. Menus in the dining room were in picture format and in words. People's dietary requirements were catered for.

Arrangements were in place in the event people needed medical attention. One person told us the staff were kind. We saw staff supporting people. We saw people enjoyed the attention they received from the staff.

People's feedback was sought about the quality of service delivery. People mostly said the service was good.

Staff told us the team worked well together. They said the registered manager was fair and approachable.

There was learning and partnership working with external agencies

Rating at last inspection:

This service was rated Requires Improvement at the inspection dated 14 March 2018 This report was published on 25 April 2018.

Why we inspected:

This inspection was scheduled and based on previous rating.

Follow up:

We will monitor all intelligence we receive about the service to inform when the next inspection should take place.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Bradbury House provides planned and emergency short term respite care for up to ten people with a learning disability, some of whom may have additional physical care needs. At the time of the inspection there were seven people including one emergency admission having a short break.

This inspection took place on the 14 March 2018 and was unannounced.

This is the first time the service has been rated Requires Improvement.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Quality Assurance systems were in place to assess and monitor service delivery. Outcomes were assessed and where shortfalls were identified an action plan was devised. Although people's records were securely stored, they were not complete or up-to-date for some people. This was not identified within the audits of outcomes. The views of relatives were gathered about the respite care service.

People told us the types of day to day decisions they were able to make. The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the day to day decisions people made. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decision were not complete for all complex decisions. There were inconsistencies with the assessments of capacity for complex decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications.

Steps were taken to ensure medicine systems were safe. People told us staff administered their medicines. Medicine profiles included a photograph of the person and essential information such as known allergies and how the person preferred to take their medicines. Medicine administration records (MAR) charts were signed by staff to indicate the medicines administered. Where “as required” also known as (PRN) medicines were prescribed procedures were not devised on the administration of these medicines.

Risk management systems were mostly effective. Risks were assessed and for some people risk assessments were developed on how to minimise the risks. However, moving and handling risks assessments were devised but lacked detail.

The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s individual risks and the actions needed to minimise the risks. Individual risks to people included self harm, risk of malnutrition and for mobility impairments. Epilepsy profiles were in place for people at risk of seizures.

There were people who expressed their anxiety and frustration using aggression and self-harm. Staff told us and training records confirmed they had attended positive behaviour management training. Behaviour management plans included the triggers and the actions staff must take to prevent situations from escalating.

Incidents and accidents were reported and were analysed to identify emerging patterns and trends.

The safety of the living environment were regularly checked to support people to stay safe. For example, fire risk assessments, fire safety equipment checks and fire training for staff.

Safeguarding processes in place ensured people at the service were safeguarded from abuse. Members of staff told us and training records showed safeguarding of abuse training was attended. The people we spoke with said they felt safe and the staff gave them a sense of safety.

Staffing rotas were designed to ensure staffing levels were appropriate to meet the needs of people on respite care.

Staff received feedback through regula

This inspection took place on 8 November 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection took place on 17 September 2014 and no breaches of legal requirements were found .

Bradbury House provides planned and emergency short term respite care for up to ten people with a learning disability, some of whom may have additional physical care needs. At the time of our inspection there were eight people using the service.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. 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.

Sufficient numbers of staff were available to support people’s individual needs safely. This was observed throughout the inspection and included the evening meal activity .We saw people were supported with their nutritional needs in line with their assessed needs. When people used the service the staffing levels were flexible to meet f people’s needs.

People’s rights were protected in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People’s capacity was considered in decisions being made about their care and support and best interest decisions were made when necessary.

Support plans and risk assessments were representative of people’s current needs and gave detailed guidance for staff to follow. Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences which meant that they received care in accordance with their wishes.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring in their approach and were treated with dignity and respect. This was confirmed by the observations we made during our inspection.

People had choice about their daily activities when they stayed at the service. People and their relatives were involved in their support planning so staff understood what the person liked to do.

Safe procedures and a policy was in place to guide staff to manage people’s medicines safely. Staff received training to guide them in best practice procedures. Stock levels and audits that we checked were correct.

People told us they enjoyed their short term stays and felt staff understood them well and knew how they liked to spend their day.

The provider had ensured that staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles effectively. Training was provided and staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people’s needs.

The service was well led. Staff spoke highly of the management team and the vision of the service. There was a positive attitude amongst staff towards their work and staff responded well to the direction of the management team. A detailed system was in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included a system to manage people’s complaints.

An adult social care inspector carried out this inspection. The focus of the inspection was to answer five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

As part of this inspection we spoke with two people who use the service, three relatives, the county manager, the team leader, two care staff and a health professional who works with the service. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included, three support plans, daily care records, risk assessments, audits, policies and maintenance logs.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People had been cared for in an environment that was safe, clean and well maintained. The design of the home allowed good access to all areas and security measures provided safety for people using the service.

Support plans gave guidance and instruction to staff on how to meet people's needs in a way which minimised risk for the individual. They ensured that staff had the information necessary to support people safely.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We spoke with the team leader with regard to the recent Supreme Court ruling and found they were aware of the ruling and had been in contact with the local authority deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLSs) team. There were no DoLS in place at the time of this inspection.

Is the service effective?

People told us that staff helped them to make decisions and ensured they were happy with what was happening. One person told us “I can go out by myself, but I like staff with me, they help me find my way.” and “I am trying to find a job, some staff help me with this”. Staff we spoke with showed good understanding of people's needs, seeking consent and assisting people to make decisions.

We observed staff supporting people in a professional and patient manner. We saw choice being offered and explanations given. We saw staff engaged with people and they responded positively to this interaction by replying or smiling.

Is the service caring?

We saw people laughing and enjoying the company of the staff supporting them. Staff understood how people communicated and how people would express their likes and dislikes during their care and support.

Throughout the inspection we noted people sought advice from staff and had positive interactions with them. We saw people being supported to take part in games and interests as well as routine activities of daily living such as eating and drinking.

Relatives we spoke with commented positively on the support their loved ones received. For example, one relative said: “they (staff) have learnt mannerisms and behaviours by watching carefully and can deal with difficult situations with …..”

Is the service responsive?

People’s needs had been assessed before they used the service. People’s needs were reviewed with them and their relatives as appropriate. Records confirmed people’s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided that met their wishes. People had access to activities that were important to them.

We spoke with two people and three relatives of people who use the service. They told us they could talk to staff if they were unhappy about something. They all said they felt confident they would be listened to. People told us they knew how to make a complaint if necessary.

The staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the complaints procedure and confirmed how they would support people to make a complaint if necessary. One staff member told us: “if a person has a concern they are encouraged to speak up and they are listened to and action is taken.”

Is the service well-led?

People and their relatives said they were consulted about their views and they completed satisfaction questionnaires. They told us they could approach staff at any time and they felt listened to.

The provider had a quality audit system in place. We saw evidence that when issues had been identified, they were managed appropriately.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others related to the delivery of care.

None of the people staying at the home were in when we visited. We joined a staff meeting and we spoke individually with the manager, two senior support workers, two support workers, a kitchen assistant and caretaker.

At our previous inspection in January 2013 we found some people's care records were not helpful because it was not possible to tell if information in people's records was current and accurate. The provider told us how they intended to improve their record keeping so people would not be at risk of unsafe care. At this visit we found records had been improved and were completed and maintained in a consistent way. All documents were signed and dated. Staff we spoke with were confident they and their colleagues were up to date with the content of records.

We looked at how people’s medicines were managed. We found there were good systems for ensuring people’s medicines were safely looked after. Written plans made sure people received their medicines in ways that met individual needs and preferences. Staff always checked with people’s families or GPs if there had been any changes in prescription since their previous stay.

We looked at how the home was kept clean. All the communal rooms and areas, and bedrooms we saw, were very clean. Staff took a pride in this. The manager had systems to keep a check on cleaning being carried out to a high standard.

People stayed at the home for short breaks. Most people used the home regularly for respite. Some people stayed because they needed an emergency situation to be resolved. People brought personal items with them for their stay. If necessary, they could occupy the same room each time they came, so it would be familiar. A person staying at the home said staff helped them settle at the home and were always available.

There was a games room with a pool table and other games and pastimes. People were supported to keep going to their usual day facilities, employment or schools. At weekends they had trips out. We saw the staffing level was varied to suit the support needs and activities of people staying at the home at any time.

Staff were friendly and respectful to people. They had guidance on meeting people's communication needs and we saw they were skilled in communicating with people. One person told us “I don’t like crowds; staff understand that.”

Support plans gave staff detailed guidance about people's care needs, including how to use any equipment. A person staying at the home told us “I have epilepsy. The staff know what to do when I have a seizure.” However, some records were not helpful because they did not show how old information was or if it came from Bradbury House.

There were safe arrangements for keeping people's money if they wished. Staff were trained in recognising if people might be at risk, and what to do if they had concerns for people’s safety.