Briarfield

Updated 13 December 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 31 October 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service, such as notifications we had received from the registered provider. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. We also spoke with social workers, health care practitioners and commissioners of care. We planned the inspection using this information.

We met six of the seven people who made Briarfield their home. We spoke with them and we observed how staff interacted with them. We looked at three care plans in depth and at two person centred plans. We checked on all the medicines managed in the home. We also looked at everyone's daily notes of care and support delivery.

We spoke with two visiting relatives and met with three visiting health care professionals.

We spent time with the registered manager, a senior support worker and with three support staff on duty. We also spent time with the operations manager at the end of the visit. We looked at four personnel files and at three staff files that contained evidence of recruitment, induction, training, supervision and appraisal.

We saw rosters and records relating to maintenance and to health and safety. We checked on food and fire safety records and we looked at some of the West House policies and procedures. We had already received copies of quality monitoring reports and we saw audits of quality in the home.

We walked around all areas of the home and checked on infection control measures, health and safety and housekeeping arrangements.

Updated 13 December 2017

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 31 October 2017. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector. At the last inspection in September 2015, the service was rated as good. At this inspection we found the service remained good.

Briarfield is a care home for seven people who have a learning disability. West House, a local not for profit organisation, is the provider who runs the home. People living at the home have a range of needs including learning disabilities and some people also live with a physical disability. The home is a dormer bungalow and all living space is on the ground floor. The house is in a residential area near to the centre of Workington and people have their own transport so they can access all the amenities of this town. Accommodation is in single rooms with suitable shared accommodation and a large garden.

The service has a suitably qualified and experienced registered manager who runs 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.

The staff team understood how to protect vulnerable adults from harm and abuse. Staff had received suitable training and understood their responsibilities. Good risk assessments and risk management plans were in place to support people. Suitable arrangements were in place to ensure that new members of staff had been suitably vetted and were the right kind of people to work with vulnerable adults. There had been no accidents or incidents of note in the service.

Staff were suitably inducted, trained and developed to give the best support possible. We judged that staffing levels were suitable to meet the assessed needs of people in the service.

Medicines were appropriately managed in the service with people having reviews of their medicines on a regular basis. People in the home saw their GP and health specialists whenever necessary.

The registered manager was aware of her responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when people were deprived of their liberty for their own safety. We judged that this had been done appropriately and that consent was always sought for any interaction, where possible.

People told us they were happy with the food provided. We saw that the staff team made sure people had appropriate nutrition and hydration. The staff had helped someone to lose a considerable amount of weight without feeling hungry or deprived.

Infection control was suitably managed and the home was clean and comfortable when we visited. The registered manager made sure the home was maintained and redecorated and that the house was a comfortable home for people.

We observed kind, patient and suitable care being provided. Staff made sure that confidentiality, privacy and dignity were adhered to. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible. Staff had good relationships with people in the home and we saw affectionate, yet professional, interactions.

Assessments and care plans were up to date and met the meets of people in the service. Staff were very centred on the needs of individuals and understood their needs, wishes and goals.

People were happy with the activities and entertainments on offer. Some people liked going out an about whilst others preferred quieter activities in the home. Everyone was given the opportunity to follow their own interests. The registered manager had introduced Reiki as a form of therapy and people told us they enjoyed this.

The service had a suitable complaints policy in place and no formal complaints had been received.

The service had a quality monitoring system in place which was monitored by the registered manager and by the registered provider. Future planning for change was based on the outcomes of this monitoring and action was taken if improvements were needed.