Archived: Bagshot Park Care Centre

Updated 15 September 2016

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 26 July 2016 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, an inspection manager 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.

Before the inspection, we reviewed records held by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the registered person is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection.

On this occasion we did not ask the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR) before our inspection. This was because we inspected the service sooner than we had planned to. The PIR 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.

As part of our inspection we spoke with seven people, four relatives, five staff, the new manager and interim manager. We also reviewed a variety of documents which included the care plans for four people, six staff files, medicines records and a range of other documentation relevant to the management of the home.

Updated 15 September 2016

The inspection took place on 26 July 2016 and was unannounced. This inspection was to follow up on actions we had asked the provider to take to improve the service people received. Bagshot Park Care Centre provides specialist care and accommodation for a maximum of 22 adults who are diagnosed with acquired brain injury, other neurological conditions such as multiple sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease, as well as strokes and complex needs. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living at the service.

There was no registered manager in post. 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 registered manager had resigned their post and the service had been supported by an interim manager. A new manager had recently started at the service and was in the process of submitting their application to register with the Care Quality Commission. Both the interim manager and new manager were present to support us with inspection.

At our last inspection in December 2015 we found breaches of the legal requirements with regard to the safe recruitment of staff and the management of care records. The provider wrote to us to inform us how they planned to take in relation to the above concerns. At this inspection we found that the required improvements had been made and the provider was meeting their legal responsibilities.

There were safe recruitment processes in place to ensure staff employed were suitable to work at the service. Staff were knowledgeable regarding their responsibilities of safeguarding people from the risk of abuse and were confident that any concerns raised would be correctly reported. There were sufficient staff deployed in the service to ensure people’s needs were met in a timely manner.

Risks to people’s safety and well-being were assessed and control measures implemented to keep people safe. Staff were knowledgeable about the support people required to manage risks safely. Medicines procedures were in place to ensure people received their medicines in line with prescribed guidelines.

Safety checks on the environment and equipment used were completed regularly. Where accidents or incidents occurred these were investigated to ensure any changes to the way people were supported were made and reduce the risk of reoccurrence. The provider had developed a business continuity plan which meant that people’s care would not be interrupted should an emergency occur.

People were supported by skilled staff who received induction and training to support them in their role. Clinical staff had access to supervision from a Nero-rehabilitation consultant to ensure that best practice guidance was followed and any concerns or changes in people’s health were identified quickly. People’s healthcare was supported by an in-house multi-disciplinary team which included nurses, physiotherapists and occupational therapists. In addition, people had access to external healthcare professionals and specialist advice.

People told us that the quality of food was good and a choice was always available. People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. Where people required support to eat this was provided in a dignified and unhurried way. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual dietary requirements and advice from professionals regarding nutrition was followed.

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people’s rights and spent time with people ensuring they gained consent prior to delivering care. There was a strong emphasis throughout the service on maintaining and developing people’s independence and staff worked together to ensure people’s needs and abilities were continually assessed.

People were supported with kindness and compassion by staff who knew them well. There was a relaxed atmosphere throughout the service. Staff were aware of people’s individual communication needs and supported people to use a variety of communication aids to make their needs and preferences known. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and visitors to the service were made to feel welcome.

People’s care was provided in line with their needs and preferences. Prior to moving into the service people’s needs were assessed and care plans were developed using this information. Staff demonstrated a good understanding about how people preferred their support.

Complaints were taken seriously and responded to in a timely manner. People and their relatives told us they felt comfortable in raising concerns and felt listened to.

The provider had ensured that systems were in place to gain people’s views of the service and had taken action to resolve any issues raised. Regular audits were completed to monitor the quality of the service provided.