New Bradley Hall

Updated 24 October 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

New Bradley Hall 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.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority and professionals who work with the service. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with eight people who used the service and six relatives about their experience of the care provided. Several people also completed and gave us CQC comment cards to tell us about their care. We spoke with 10 members of staff including the area manager, registered manager, deputy manager, care co-ordinator, two senior care workers, two care workers, an activities co-ordinator and the handyperson. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We also spoke with a visiting health care professional.

We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s care records and multiple medication records. We looked at staff files in relation to recruitment and staff support. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

Updated 24 October 2019

People's care plans on most occasions reflected people’s needs and preferences although there were some inconsistencies found. However, staff were able to explain how they provided appropriate safe care that reflected people’s needs and preferences. People also expressed satisfaction with the care they received.

People were safe, and staff knew what to do to minimise risks to people as far as this was possible without infringing their rights.

People were supported by care staff that were caring and expressed interest in people and the support they provided them. People received person centred care and support based on their individual needs and preferences. Staff were knowledgeable about people, their needs and preferences and used this to develop good relationships with the people.

People were supported by care staff who had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. There was some need for training refreshers, but this had been identified and training updates were on going. Staff understood, felt confident and well supported in their role. People's health was supported as staff worked with other health care providers when needed to support people’s healthcare needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff understood they should support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was respected by staff.

People enjoyed meals that reflected their preferences and there was access to a range of foods that met people’s needs due to their health, or specific preferences.

We saw the service was responsive to information from people and relatives. People could complain, and concerns were listened and responded to by the staff. Complaints and comments were used as a tool to drive improvement of the service.

People, relatives and staff were able to share their views with management. People enjoyed living at New Bradley Hall and were able to follow their chosen routines and enjoyed access to activities at the service or in the community.

Quality monitoring systems included audits and regular checks on people’s satisfaction with the service they received. The provider had systems in place to ensure they kept up to date with developments in the sector and changes in the law.

The registered manager and staff were approachable, organised, listened and responded to people and acted on feedback shared with them. The registered manager demonstrated they were not complacent and wished to improve the service further, for example developing care records further so they would be more person centred and accurate.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was ‘good’ (report published 24 March 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.