About the service:

Edgbaston Beaumont Nursing home provides domiciliary care to people who live in privately owned bungalows and apartments which are located within the complex. At the time of the inspection visit two people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

One person who used the agency and a relative told us they felt safe whilst using the service. One person said, “I feel safe with [relatives] home being within the nursing home grounds and they can access the home for entertainment and meals it is really good.”

We spoke with one person who used the service and a relative. Both commented on how well they were supported. A relative said, “They are always very polite and encourage [relative] to do things and be more independent as possible.”

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. One person who used the service we spoke with confirmed this.

The service worked in partnership with healthcare professionals and families to ensure people’s health care needs were met. People were supported to attend healthcare appointments to ensure their health and wellbeing was maintained.

A relative we spoke with told us told us there were enough staff to ensure the person received support and enable them to care in a timely way. They told us the staff member had built up a good relationship with them and cared for their relative extremely well.

One person told us they were treated with respect by caring staff. They were happy with the continuity of staff and had built up relationships with the staff member and registered manager. They had no issues with staffing levels and their visit was always on time at the correct time of day.

The staff member we spoke with demonstrated a good understanding of their duties to support people who lived in their own homes to take their medication. This assisted them to protect people from the unsafe management of medicines.

We found Edgbaston Beaumont had systems in place to ensure they could meet people’s diverse and cultural needs. Care records we looked at evidenced people and where appropriate relatives were fully included in their support planning.

There were good opportunities for the both people who used the service and families to discuss any concerns or ideas that they had about the agency. Relatives were consulted about their care and contributed to any reviews or discussions about the service.

People who used the service and a relative stated the staff member and registered manager engaged with other organisations to help provide consistent care. We found care plans focused on maintaining their independence in all aspects of their support requirements.

The registered manager and organisation used a variety of methods to assess and monitor the quality of the service. These included, spot checks, auditing of the service and informal regular discussions with relatives and people who used the agency.

Rating at last inspection: The service was rated Good (Report published 1 April 2016.)

Why we inspected: This was a planned and scheduled inspection.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme or if any issues or concerns are identified.

This inspection took place on 27 January 2016 and was announced. We gave the provider 48 hours’ notice of our visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service: we needed to make sure that there would be someone in the office at the time of our visit.

Edgbaston Beaumont DCA provides personal care for people in their own home. People’s home are situated within a complex which includes a nursing home. There were three people using this service at the time of our inspection.

The registered manager was present during our inspection. 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.

People using this service told us they were safe. People told us they felt confident enough to raise any concerns they had. Staff we spoke with knew how to recognise when people might be at risk of potential harm and were aware of the registered provider’s procedures for reporting any concerns. Systems had been put in place to minimise risks whilst still allowing people’s freedom and choices. People we spoke with told us there were enough staff to support them. Recruitment procedures were in place to keep people safe.

People told us they received their medicines safely. We saw that medicines were managed safely and only staff who had received training were allowed to administer medicines.

Staff were appropriately trained and had knowledge and skills to provide care and support to people. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of their responsibilities and understood how to apply the Mental Capacity Act 2005 guidelines into their work practices.

People who required support with their meals and drinks received the support they needed. People chose to use facilities within the complex and valued the companionship this entailed. People told us that staff supported them to access healthcare professionals when needed.

People told us they were happy with the service provided. People told us that staff were kind, lovely and respected their home whilst working. Staff were able to describe ways that promoted people’s dignity and independence.

People were involved and made decisions to how they wanted their care needs met. People participated in the planning and development of their care plans. We saw care plans contained people’s personal preferences and wishes which enabled individual care. We found that some care plan timetables were not up to date with the hours of care people were currently receiving. People and their relatives told us they did not always contribute to the review process when updating their care plans.

Procedures were in place for people and their relatives to make complaints. We were told that concerns had been raised on occasions and they had not been responded to in a timely manner. We found that concerns had not always been used to make improvements to the service.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. These were effective in ensuring the home was consistently well led and compliant with the regulations. Staff told us they felt well supported and valued.

On the day of our inspection, two people were receiving care and support from this care agency. We subsequently spoke to one person who received care, three relatives, three members of care staff and the manager of the agency.

People and their relatives were complimentary about the care staff who provided care and support. Comments included, “The staff go the extra mile, they are very attentive and helpful” and “No concerns whatsoever, the manager and the staff are very good.”

We examined care plans and found that people’s needs were properly assessed and that care and support was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

We found that people were adequately protected against the risks associated with medication because there were appropriate arrangements for obtaining, dispensing, safe administration and disposal of medication.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received and took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. Relatives of people who received support told us that they were consulted and kept updated regarding care and support. Comments included, “The manager is very approachable, she gets straight back to me and keeps me updated.”

We found that people were protected from the risk of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment because records contained accurate and up to date information about them.

People made positive comments about the care they received. Comments included: "Yes the staff are very good to me” and “I am treated very well."

Relatives and friends of people using the service also made complimentary comments about the service. Comments included, "We think our friend is given good care and support” and “We have no complaints.”

Our conversations with people using the service and their friends and relatives confirmed that the staff were attentive, polite and well trained. It was clear that the staff had a good knowledge of all of the people who they cared for and were familiar with their preferences and health conditions.

The findings of our inspection identified that, overall care and support was delivered in a way that ensured people's safety and welfare. We found that people who use the service understood the care and treatment choices available to them and were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

We found that people who use the service were protected from the risk of abuse and that they were safe and their health and welfare needs were being met by staff who are fit, appropriately qualified and are physically able to do their job.