About the service:

Burntwood Hall Care Centre is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Burntwood Hall is located in Barnsley. There is a separate unit on the first floor for people who are living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service:

People and their relatives spoke positively about all the staff. A relative told us, “Best thing about this place is the standard of care.”

There were systems in place to recognise and respond to any allegations of abuse. Staff had received training and understood what it meant to protect people from abuse. They told us they were confident any concerns they raised would be taken seriously by management.

Medicines were stored safely and securely. There were effective systems in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

Safe recruitment procedures made sure staff were of suitable character and background. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s care and support needs in a timely way. However, some people and their relatives told us staff could appear rushed on occasion.

Staff were provided with an effective induction and relevant training to make sure they had the right skills and knowledge for their role. Staff were supported in their jobs through regular supervisions and an annual appraisal.

People were consulted and listened to about their care and support needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People told us they enjoyed the food served at Burntwood Hall. People were supported to eat and drink to maintain a balanced diet. People were supported to maintain good health and have access to health and social care services as required.

There was a range of activities available to people. All staff had time to spend socialising with people during the morning and at lunch time.

People, their relatives and staff told us the managers were supportive and approachable.

People, their relatives and staff were asked for their opinion of the quality of the service via regular meetings and annual surveys.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance. There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

More information is in the full report.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection the service was rated Good (report published on 3 September 2016).

Why we inspected:

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

This inspection took place on 2 August 2016 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Burntwood Hall was last inspected by CQC on 8 January 2014 and was compliant with the regulations in force at that time.

Burntwood Hall provides care and accommodation for up to 42 people. On the day of our inspection there were 33 people using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

Accidents and incidents were appropriately recorded and investigated. Risk assessments were in place for people who used the service and staff and described potential risks and the safeguards in place. Staff had been trained in how to manage behaviour that challenged and in safeguarding vulnerable adults. Medicines were stored safely and securely, and procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.

The home was clean, spacious and suitable for the people who used the service and people were enabled to access the spacious garden area. Appropriate health and safety checks had been carried out on the building.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty in order to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had an effective recruitment and selection procedure in place and carried out relevant checks when they employed staff. Staff were suitably trained and training sessions were planned for any due or overdue refresher training. Staff received regular supervisions and appraisals.

The provider was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and was following the requirements in the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People were protected from the risk of poor nutrition and staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs. Care records contained evidence of visits to and from external health care specialists to ensure people’s physical health was supported.

People who used the service, and family members, were complimentary about the standard of care at Burntwood Hall. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and helped to maintain people’s independence by encouraging them to care for themselves where possible.

Care records showed that people’s needs were assessed by a senior manager from the service before they moved into Burntwood Hall and care plans were written in a person centred way. Care records were well detailed and showed people’s needs were reviewed regularly.

Activities were arranged for people who used the service based on their likes and interests and to help meet their social needs. People were supported to have their pets at Burntwood Hall and the service worked with a local charity to ensure the welfare needs of these pets were supported.

People who used the service, and family members, were aware of how to make a complaint. There was a clear record of complaints and the outcome of these held by the service.

The service regularly used community services and facilities and had links with other local organisations. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and were comfortable raising any concerns. People who used the service, family members and staff were regularly consulted about the quality of the service.

On the day of our inspection we spoke with six people, and seven relatives and friends of people, who lived at the home. We spoke with the registered manager, three care workers, the activities co-ordinator and a kitchen assistant.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. People told us, I enjoy it here, they [staff] look after you well. I’ve always been happy here” and “It’s good, they’re lovely, they can’t do enough for you, happy with everything.”

People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. One person said, “[For breakfast] I get bacon sandwiches, cornflakes, cup of tea. The next day I might have porridge, scrambled egg. ..I pick what I want, I get plenty on the plate.”

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. One person said, “I’ve not missed any [tablets], I take some in a morning and they come when I need them. If I have some pain, they might give me some [painkillers].”

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs. People told us, “They [staff] come pretty quickly, depends how busy they are” and “They’re there when you need them.”

People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes. Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. A relative we spoke with said they were highly satisfied with the service they received at Burntwood Hall. They told us they had visited the home before placing their relative there. They said staff were ‘lovely’, the service had nothing to hide, because they operated an open door policy where they visited any time and could wander freely throughout the home. They said they had found staff ‘approachable’ and ‘helpful’ and that ‘they had time to discuss things with you’.

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

People were cared for by suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

There was an effective complaints system available. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately.

People who used the service told us they were happy with the care provided and were involved in decisions about their care and welfare needs. Five people told us they had not read their care plan but that was their choice.

We spoke with four relatives during our inspection who told us they had been involved in the development of their relative’s care plan. They told us their relative’s dignity was respected and confidentiality was always maintained.

People who used the service told us they were happy living at the home and they were well looked after. One person told us, “I like living here, its lovely”. Another person told us, “I have been happy all the time I have been here, I have no complaints”. Staff were described as, “Lovely, very good and understanding”.

We spoke with four relative’s who told us they were happy with the care and their family member was well looked after. One relative we spoke with told us their relative had, “Settled well and it was the best thing we have ever done”. Another relative told us they were, “Suitably impressed with the home”.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe at the home and they would tell staff or the manager if they were worried about anything. We spoke with four relatives who confirmed they would talk to the manager if they had any concerns.