Archived: Burnham House

Updated 14 June 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 checked 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 was an unannounced inspection which took place on 10 & 11 March 2016. The inspection team consisted of an inspector and a specialist advisor on the care of the elderly and dementia care.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. We looked at notifications the provider was legally required to send us. Notifications are information about certain incidents, events and changes that affect a service or the people using it.

On this visit we did not request a provider information return (PIR). This 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.

We were unable to speak at length to some of the people who used the service, due to their capacity to understand. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

During our visit we received feedback from a paid representative under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This person was assigned by the local authority to be the relevant person for a person who was subject to DoLS but had no family or friends to represent them.

We spoke with five people, four relatives of people who used the service; registered manager, interim manager; one registered nurse, four care workers; an activity co-ordinator and maintenance worker. We looked at five care records; five staff records and records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 14 June 2016

Burnham House provides nursing care and support for up to 72 older people, some of whom may be living with dementia. On the day of our visit there were 26 people living in the service.

Since our last visit in April 2015 we found the service had made significant improvements.

The service acted in accordance with some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments were undertaken for people who lacked capacity to make specific decisions. Care records showed the service sought consent from people who were not able to make specific decisions in line with legislation.

People can only be deprived of their liberty so that they can receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. The application procedures for this in care homes and hospitals are called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty were being met We found conditions on authorisations to deprive people of their liberty were not being met.

We recommend that the service seek advice and guidance from current legislation in relation to adhering to conditions in DoLS.

There were no calendars to orientate people living with dementia of the date and time.

People and relatives were kept safe from abuse because staff had attended relevant training and knew what to do if they suspected abuse had occurred. Risk assessments clearly outlined potential risks and risk management plans showed what staff should do to minimise those risks. Call bells were responded to in a prompt manner.

We observed there were sufficient numbers of staff to provide care and support to people; this was supported by our review of staff rosters. We noted staffing levels were regularly reviewed to ensure there was enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People received care and support from staff who received appropriate induction; training supervision and appraisal. This was supported by our reviews of staff records and what staff had told us. Staff demonstrated an understanding of how to work with people who were unable to make specific decisions.

People’s meal times were given at the appropriate times and they were supported to have enough to eat and drink. This was supported by care records which showed people’s nutritional and hydration needs were being met.

Admission assessments ensured the service captured essential information about people in order to establish what their care and support needs were. People said staff were responsive to their needs and their social needs were met. People and their relatives knew how to raise concerns and the complaints log evidenced all complaints received were responded to appropriately.

People and their relatives expressed happiness with the service but had concerns about the frequent changes in registered managers. They said they were kept up to date with changes in the service and were able to provide feedback. Quality assurance systems were in place to improve the welfare and safety of people who used the service.