Archived: Carrbridge House

Updated 17 August 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 29 June and 5 July 2017 and was announced. The registered provider was given notice of our inspection because the location was a care home for one person that people used on a respite basis. The inspection was carried out by an adult social care inspector.

Prior to our inspection, we contacted three stakeholders, including the local authority contracts and commissioning unit, a health professional and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. This information was reviewed and used to assist with our inspection.

The service was not asked to complete a provider information return (PIR) for this inspection. A PIR asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

At the time of the inspection the service was used by three people for respite breaks. During our inspection we were able to speak with one of those people and two relatives to obtain their views of the care provided. We also telephoned two staff and were able to speak with one of those. On the visits to the service and the registered provider office we spoke with a further seven staff, including the registered manager and a company director.

We spent some time being able to observe the relationship between the person who used the service and staff in the home environment. We also spent time looking at records, which included two people’s care records, four staff records and other records relating to the management of the home such as training records and quality assurance audits and reports.

Updated 17 August 2017

Carrbridge House is a care home registered to provide accommodation and personal care on a respite basis to one person at a time with a learning disability and/or autism. The service is part of a wider service offered by the registered provider, Bridge Pole Limited. Bridge Pole Limited have two other registered care homes where respite is offered. They also provide support to people in the community. The support provided to people in the community is not a registered service with CQC as the service does not provide personal care. The service is unique in that it operates at registered provider level and staff are allocated to work with people in the community or when they attend respite at any of the three registered locations. Hence people who use the service, their relatives and staff refer to all the services as ‘Bridge Pole.’

There was a manager at the service who was registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC.) A registered manager is a person who has registered with 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This is the first inspection of Carrbridge House. The service was registered with CQC in September 2016.

This inspection took place on 29 June and 5 July 2017 and was announced. The registered provider was given 48 hours’ notice of our inspection because the location is a small care home used for respite care and we needed to be sure that someone would be in.

On the day of our inspection there was one person using Carrbridge House.

At this inspection we found that people who used the service were safe. Staff knew how to identify if a person may be at risk of harm and the action to take if they had any concerns.

Recruitment processes were not always safe as not all information in regard to staff’s suitability to work with vulnerable adults was available as required by the regulations.

Training for staff could be improved as not all training was accredited and some required updating to ensure staff were up to date with current practice. Competency of some elements of staff roles required implementing. Supervision was provided and staff felt supported, but this had not taken place at the frequency identified in the registered provider’s policies and procedures. Not all staff had received appraisals annually, in accordance with the registered provider’s policies and procedures.

Risk assessments were in place to minimise risks presented by people and the environment, such as fire safety.

Systems for managing medicines were safe.

People were supported to have choice and control of their lives, but there were restrictions in place where there was no supporting documentation to confirm the legal authority of those restrictions.

Staff knew the people they were supporting very well and their preferred ways to be supported.

People participated in a range of daily activities both in and outside of the home, although some advocates and staff felt this required expanding to better meet people’s needs and promote their independence.

There were systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided, however, the checks and audits in place had not identified shortfalls found during the inspection.

People and their relatives had been asked their opinion of the quality of the service.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.