About the service:

Broom Lane Care Home provides residential care services to older people with a range of support needs, including dementia. It comprises three discrete units, one of which is specifically designed to meet the needs of people living with dementia. It can accommodate up to 58 people. The home is located near Rotherham town cente, and has parking and public transport access.

People’s experience of using this service:

People received a good standard of care from staff who treated them with dignity and respect. Staff told us they worked to the principle of providing care which they would wish their loved ones to receive.

People using the service, and staff, praised the registered manager and told us they were accessible and supportive. Staff told us they received a good standard of training, and records evidenced this.

We looked at how the provider supported people who could not give consent to their care and treatment. We found the provider was making appropriate applications to relevant authorities whre it was required to deprive people of their liberty, however, there was only limited evidence of best interest decision making relating to people who could not consent.

The premises were well managed and had been designed to meet the needs of people living with dementia. There were further improvements planned and ongoing, and people using the service told us they liked the layout, décor and facilities of the home.

People’s care plans were detailed and person centred, however, risk assessments lacked detail meaning that there wasn’t sufficient information telling staff what steps to take to minimise risks. However, staff we spoke with did understand the risks that people were vulnerable to and how to manage this.

Medicines were predominantly well managed, although we identified a small number of areas where improvements were required.

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

Rating at last inspection:

The service was last inspected in February 2017, where it was rated good.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

The inspection was unannounced, and took place on 1 February 2017. The previous inspection had taken place in May 2016 where we found breaches in relation to how medicines were managed, and how the service was run. We judged the overall rating of the service at that inspection to be Requires Improvement.

Broom Lane Care Home is a 58 bed residential care home, providing care to older adults with a range of support and care needs. At the time of the inspection there were 36 people using the service as a number of rooms were not in use due to a major refurbishment of the home being underway.

Broom Lane Care Home is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in its own grounds in a quiet, residential area, but close to public transport links and the town centre. The home is a purpose –built building, and comprises two separate units, each with their own lounge and dining area.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Staff told us they felt well-supported by the manager and praised the way the home was led.

Staff had a good knowledge of people’s needs, and treated people with respect and dignity. People using the service spoke highly of their experience of receiving care and support at the home.

People’s risk assessments did not always cover all areas where they were vulnerable to risk. Medicines were managed well, although we noted some minor shortfalls.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for safeguarding people from the risk of abuse, and staff were knowledgeable about what action to take if they suspected abuse.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act, and there were records showing that, where they were able to, people had given consent to their care. Where people lacked capacity, staff acted in their best interests.

People gave us positive feedback about the food. The mealtime we observed had a positive atmosphere and staff took time to ensure people had an enjoyable experience.

There was a thorough plan of activities at the home, including a large amount of involvement in the local community.

Where people’s needs changed, the provider ensured that people received the support they required to ensure their changing needs were met.

The inspection was unannounced, and took place on 24 May 2016. The previous inspection had taken place on 2 and 3 December 2015 and a number of breaches were identified. We identified breaches of the following regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014: Regulation 11 (consent); Regulation 12 (safe care and treatment); Regulation 13 (protection from abuse); Regulation 17 (governance) and Regulation 18 (staffing).We judged the overall rating of the service to be Inadequate. In response to this we took enforcement action against the provider and the registered manager. We also placed the service into special measures. Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months. The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

Broom Lane Care Home is a 61 bed nursing home, providing care to older adults with a range of support and care needs. At the time of the inspection there were 47 people using the service.

Broom Lane Care Home is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in its own grounds in a quiet, residential area, but close to public transport links and the town centre. The home is a purpose –built building, and comprises two separate units, each with their own lounge and dining area.

The registered manager had recently left their post. A new manager had been recruited who was commencing the procedures to become registered with CQC. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found that people’s risk assessments did not always cover all areas where they were vulnerable to risk. The care plans we checked required further detail in order to effectively support good care.

Staff had received updated training in moving and handling, and our observations showed that they carried out these procedures in a safe manner.

Medicines were not always effectively managed. We found that stocks did not always accord with records, and records were not always accurate in relation to medicines administered.

Staff interacted with people warmly and with respect. People’s privacy and dignity was upheld when staff were carrying out care tasks. There was a comprehensive plan of activities at the home, including a large amount of involvement in the local community.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act, and there were records showing that, where they were able to, people had given consent to their care. Where people lacked capacity, staff acted in their best interests, and records supported this. People gave us positive feedback about the food. Changes had recently been implemented which gave people more variety and meals that were more in accordance with their personal preferences.

Improvements had been made in the way that quality audits were carried out, but this had not yet been embedded into practice. The manager had commenced a programme of staff supervision and appraisal, but again this was only just beginning and therefore its effectiveness couldn’t be judged.

We found that. overall, the provider had made significant improvements at the home, although there were further improvements to be made. Because of this, we have removed the home from our special measures arrangements. We will continue to monitor the home to ensure that further improvements are made and sustained.

The inspection was unannounced, and was carried out over two days; 2 and 3 December 2015. The provider registered this location earlier in the year and therefore the location had not been previously inspected.

Broom Lane Care Home is a 61 bed nursing home, providing care to older adults with a range of support and care needs. At the time of the inspection there were 50 people using the service.

Broom Lane Care Home is in Rotherham, South Yorkshire. It is in its own grounds in a quiet, residential area, but close to public transport links and the town centre. The home is a purpose –built building, and comprises two separate units, each with their own lounge and dining area.

At the time of the inspection, there was a registered manager 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Arrangements at the home for monitoring the care provided, and ensuring it was of high quality, were inadequate. The registered manager did not undertake any formal auditing of care delivery, and, as result, care records and care delivery were inadequate. The company directors carried out a monthly formal audit, but this failed to identify shortfalls across the whole scope of service delivered.

The home was not operated safely. Staff practices in relation to moving and handling people were inadequate and put people at increased risk of harm. The arrangements in place to ensure medication was stored safely were not fit for purpose, and the home did not undertake all the legally required measures in relation to allegations of abuse.

Staff were observed to undertake care tasks without engaging with people, and at times used dehumanising language, or language which did not uphold people’s privacy or dignity. Staff communication was not effective, which had a negative impact on people using the service.

There had been no formal assessments of whether staff were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet people’s needs, and we observed incidents where people were asking for staff assistance but none was available. Staff described incidents where they could not meet people’s needs due to low staffing numbers.

Staff and management had very limited knowledge of consent and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Care was delivered without people’s consent being obtained, and where people did not have the mental capacity to give consent to their care, the provider had failed to follow the appropriate procedures as set out in law. Very few staff had received training in relation to this.

Staff did not receive a good standard of formal support. Team meetings and staff supervision did not take place at the provider’s planed frequency.

We identified seven breaches of regulation in this inspection. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.’

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve. This service will co

Our inspection looked at our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, speaking with the staff supporting them and looking at records.

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

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Staff were given appropriate support and guidance to ensure that they cared for people safely. People benefited from a varied choice of nutritional foods. People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff had appropriate training and appropriate guidance was followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment. Systems were in place for the manager to monitor the quality of the service and ensure it was run safely.

Is the service effective?

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned. Care plans contained assessments of people's care and support needs. These assessments described the steps staff should take to ensure each person's needs were met. These were predominantly reviewed with the frequency and consistency expected by the provider.

Is the service caring?

We observed that staff were caring and respectful towards people. Each care task we observed took place in a patient and kind manner. People spoke positively about their experience of receiving care at the home.

Is the service responsive?

Staff acted upon people's needs and in accordance with their wishes. Where people needed specific support or care, we saw evidence that this was delivered in accordance with people's needs.

Is the service well-led?

There was a quality assurance system in place, where staff internal and external to the home carried out a quality monitoring programme. This system was completed with frequency, robustly and in detail. Staff we spoke with believed they were well led and had confidence in the management team.