This was an unannounced inspection carried out on 11 December 2015.
Broughton House is registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to provide nursing, personal care and accommodation for a maximum of 50 ex-service men and women and is a registered charity. The home is situated in a residential area of Salford. There are car parking facilities to the front and side of the building. The home has an array of military memorabilia on display with a military museum on the first floor. There are spacious, well-kept garden areas surrounding the building and a separate entrance that had full ramp access for wheelchair users.
There was a registered manager in place at the time of 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.
When we last inspected this service in April 2014, we did not identify any concerns with the service.
During our inspection, we found three breaches of two Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 (Part 3), in relation to risk assessments, medication and record keeping. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
We found that initial risk assessments on admission were generally complete. However, we found examples where risks were identified with no action taken to reasonably mitigate such risks. One example related to an individual who chose to spend most of their time sat on their own in the home. This individual was of a different cultural background to the majority of people living at the home. We found at least one other person who used the service had been identified as having racist opinions and had previously racially abused members of staff. Though we found risk assessments in place to protect this individual against harm, there was no mention of how the home would protect them from potential racist abuse.
In another example, we found a person who had recently been admitted to the home, had been identified as having had poor eyesight, suffered from vertigo and confusion. This person was identified as requiring the support of walking aids, but often forgot to use them and did not recognise the dangers of mobilising without them. We found that this person had been allocated a bedroom on the first floor of the home. The room was directly next to the stairwell. The nurse completing the care plan had identified that the location was not ideal, but was awaiting a room becoming free on the ground floor. There was no evidence that the risks identified had been effectively addressed or had been discussed with the person who used the service or their family.
When viewing the care plan of one person who suffered from three serious illnesses, their records failed to identify how these illnesses should be managed safely. In particular, the problem relating to one illness talked about staff observing for symptoms, however it did not explain what these were.
This is a breach of Regulation 12 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 (Part 3), safe care and treatment, because the service had failed to demonstrate that they had taken all reasonably practicable steps to mitigate any identified risks.
As part of the inspection we checked to see how the service managed and administered medication safely. We found people were not always protected against the risks associated with medicines, because the provider did not have appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely. In four records we looked at relating to the administration of prescribed creams we found repeated gaps and omissions. This meant the service could not demonstrate that the medication had been administered in line with the prescription.
We found an example when the home had run out of a prescribed medication for a person who used the service. We were told that the pharmacist had not delivered the correct amount, which meant the person did not have their medication administered for two nights. We spoke with the person who used the service who told us that sometimes there were delays in getting their medicines. They had run out of medication last Sunday and no explanation was provided by the home as to why they didn’t have enough stock.
This is a breach of Regulation 12 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 (Part 3), safe care and treatment, because the service failed to ensure sufficient supplies and the proper and safe management of medicines.
We found that care plans did not always accurately reflect people’s current needs. The service used two sets of care files for each person who used the service. One was paper based and the other was an electronic record. We repeatedly found information in paper files, which was either out of date or missing. The potential existed for a member of care staff to act on wrong or missing information if referring to the paper files for instructions relating to an individual’s care
People and their relatives told us that the home was responsive to their needs and they were involved in deciding the care they or their loved one’s received, however this was not clearly documented in care files we looked at.
We found that for some people lacking capacity to make specific decisions for themselves there was no clear, readily accessible record of what had been done to assess this need and the outcome. We found that a facility existed on the MCA electronic file for this to be recorded, however we found that in some instances fields had not been populated. We also found examples that risk assessment and care plan review dates were either missing or out of date.
This is a breach of Regulation 17 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulation 2014 (Part 3), good governance, because the service had failed to maintain accurate and complete contemporaneous records for people who used the service.
We found people were protected against the risks of abuse, because the home had appropriate recruitment procedures in place. Appropriate checks were carried out before staff began work at the home to ensure they were fit to work with vulnerable adults.
We found the home had suitable safeguarding procedures in place, which were designed to protect vulnerable people from abuse and the risk of abuse.
We looked at how the service ensured there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. During our visit we found there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty during the day to support people who used the service. When we spoke with staff we received conflicting views regarding staffing levels. On the whole, nurses told us that they felt staffing levels were sufficient, whereas most care staff felt the home was often under staffed.
Staff we spoke with said they received an induction when they started working at the home, which included classroom based training and shadowing more experienced staff.
All staff we spoke with confirmed they received supervision and appraisals, which we verified by looking at supervision records and a supervision matrix.
At the time of our inspection, there were a number of people living at the home who were subject of a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The service monitored DoLS by use of a log, however we found that this record was incomplete as there were 14 names on the list with no information recorded.
Where it had been identified that people did not have capacity to make choices, then the appropriate requests for Deprivation of Liberty Standards (DoLS) were in evidence as well as best interest decisions.
Throughout our inspection, we observed staff seeking consent from people before delivering any care or treatment such as medication, support with mobilising, personal hygiene or support with eating.
We have made a recommendation about ‘dementia friendly’ environments.
The home undertook an initial assessment to identify any dietary and nutritional needs. We looked at food and fluid intakes charts, which were reviewed on a regular basis.
Staff were complimented on the way they approached and cared for people who used the service.
Throughout our inspection, where we observed interaction between staff and people who used the service, it was kind, appropriate and caring. People looked clean and well groomed. Staff knew people well and there was a friendly atmosphere between staff and people living at the home.
The home was also a member of ‘Care Aware Advocacy Service,’ which was a ‘one stop shop’ for people and families to seek independent advice and support.
During our inspection, we checked to see how people were supported with interests and social activities. We found that the home had a dedicated activities co-ordinator, who was also the Welfare Officer. People we spoke with were able to describe a comprehensive list of activities they could join in within the home, which included outings to engage in various social events.
We found that the service routinely listened to people to address any concerns or complaints.
While nurses told us they were supportive of the new manager, a number of care staff we spoke with felt there was a 'disconnect' between the registered manager and care staff who were very unhappy. We were told that the management team were rarely seen on the floor. They told us that they did not feel valued or listened to by the registered manager. Other care staff felt the registered manager was approachable and that the changes made had been on the whole positive and had contributed to improving the home.
We spoke to the registered manager about these concerns, who demonstrated a clear vision of the changes that were required. They acknowledged that there had been some unhappiness with some staff in relation to working practices and the changes implemented since their arrival and that some staff had left the service. The manager told us that they felt communication between management and staff needed to improve in order to successfully implement the changes they proposed.
We found the service undertook an extensive and comprehensive range of audits and checks to monitor the quality of services provided. However, we questioned the effectiveness of some of these audits in light of the issues we found in respect of medication, risk assessment and the quality of record keeping within care files.
Providers are required by law to notify CQC of certain events in the service such as serious injuries, deaths and deprivation of liberty safeguard applications. Records we looked at confirmed that CQC had received all the required notifications in a timely way from the service.