We carried out a review of the data available to us about Briarfield on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Briarfield, you can give feedback on this service.
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.
We carried out this unannounced inspection on 11 September 2015. We last inspected this service on 28 June 2013. At that inspection we found that the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.
Briarfield provides personal care and accommodation for up to seven people who have a learning disability, and some people had more complex healthcare needs. West House, a local not for profit organisation, is the provider who runs the home. The home is a detached dormer bungalow adapted for its current use as a care home and it is situated in a suburban area of the town of Workington. All bedrooms are on the ground floor, with office and a staff bedroom on the first floor. The home has a range of equipment suitable to meet the needs of the people living there. It has a lounge, dining room and wide corridors for those who use a wheelchair to get around. Bathrooms and showers rooms have been adapted to meet the needs of people in the home.
There was a registered manager employed at 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.
People in this service had limited verbal communication so we used other means to make a judgement about how people were cared for and supported. We observed people with the staff team. We saw that people who lived in the home were comfortable with the staff who worked there.
Relatives told us that they felt their family members were safe living in this home and said that the staff supported them to maintain good health.
We saw that people were being treated with dignity, respect and care. There were affectionate and caring relationships between the care staff in the home and the people who lived there. The staff knew how people communicated and gave people the time they needed to make choices about their lives and to communicate their decisions, wherever possible.
People were protected from the risk of abuse because the staff in the home understood their responsibility to keep people safe and the actions to take if they were concerned a person may be at risk of harm.
The service had carried out risk assessments to ensure that they identified potential hazards and protected people from harm.
Medicines were ordered, stored, administered and disposed of correctly.
There were enough staff to provide the care that people needed and to support people to follow the activities they enjoyed.
People enjoyed the meals provided in the home. We saw that special diets were well catered for and staff sought out expert advice from dieticians and speech and language therapists to ensure people were given support to maintain a healthy diet.
All the staff employed in the home had received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to provide the support people needed. Staff met regularly with their manager for supervision.
The registered manager of the home was knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, (DoLS). The focus of the home was on promoting individuals’ rights and independence and no one in the home had any unauthorised restrictions on their right to make their own choices.
Medicines were handled safely in the home and people received their medication as prescribed by their doctor. People told us that the staff in the home supported them to attend health care appointments as they needed. People were supported to maintain good health because they had access to appropriate health care services.
Staff had worked hard to ensure that the service and those who used it were involved with, and went out in their local community.
Care plans were written in a straightforward manner and based on thorough assessments. They contained sufficient information to enable people to be supported correctly.
The registered manager promoted a positive culture that was open, inclusive and empowering. The provider had systems in place to ensure the delivery of good quality care.
Staff had developed good working relationships with health and social care professionals to ensure people had access to a full range of services to promote people's physical and mental well being.
We saw that there were effective managerial systems in place to monitor that people living at the home received a good standard of care and support, including robust methods of record keeping.
The home was well adapted to the needs of people with more complex needs and restricted mobility such as requiring wheelchair access and specialist moving and handling equipment.
When we visited three people were setting off to go on holiday to Blackpool with support workers from the home. There was a great deal of activity and excitement and people were obviously looking forward to the trip. Two people who were still at home were being helped to decide what to do that day, and thought they might go out for lunch. Another person was attending a day service, and the other was in hospital. One member of staff had arranged to visit them in hospital and was taking provisions, and everyone's best wishes.
We observed lively and positive interactions between staff and people in the home which made for a relaxed and friendly atmosphere. We also observed staff responding sensitively to people and picking up cues from body language when they needed assistance or reassurance.
We judged that people were leading interesting and meaningful lives and were being supported to stay healthy and well.