We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bradley Resource Centre 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 Bradley Resource Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as masks, gloves and aprons were available to visiting professionals on entry to the building. Visitors had their temperature checked before entering the building.
• People kept in touch with family members via telephone or video calls.
• Where people or staff had received a positive Covid-19 test, the provider followed national guidance relating to self-isolation.
• The environment had been adapted to allow for social distancing between people in communal areas.
• Staff had received additional accredited training in infection prevention and control. Additional PPE stations were set up around the building to ensure PPE was easily accessible to staff at all times.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Bradley Resource Centre is a residential care home registered to provide personal care to up to 23 people. 14 people were residing at the service at the time of the inspection. The service provides short stay reablement services and accommodation in one adapted building. The care home accommodates people across two separate units, each of which has separate adapted facilities. At the time of the inspection, all people were accommodated in one unit only. People generally live at the centre for a period of up to three weeks with some longer stays where needed.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People gave us mixed feedback regarding activities available at the care home. Some people told us there were not enough activities to do but others told us they were focused on the rehabilitation programme so they did not wish to engage in activities.
People felt safe. Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and staff understood them. Processes were in place to ensure staff were recruited safely. Risk was managed and reviewed to ensure people were kept safe.
People’s needs and choices were assessed and promoted effectively. Staff had the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care. Staff worked well together and with healthcare professionals to effectively meet people’s needs and promote positive outcomes.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind and caring staff. People were supported to be involved in making decisions about their care for themselves and staff listened to them. People were supported by staff who encouraged them to become more independent and supported them to work towards their rehabilitation goals.
People were supported by staff who understood their preferences and individual communication needs. People’s concerns and complaints were listened to, investigated and responded to appropriately.
Robust audit systems were in place to check the quality of the service. People and staff were encouraged to engage to improve the service. People and staff found the manager to be open and approachable.
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 (published 6 December 2016).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Bradley Resource Centre is registered to provide accommodation for people who require personal care. The service provides short stay reablement services and accommodation for up to 23 older people some who may have a physical disability. People generally lived at the centre for a period of four to six weeks. On the day of the inspection there were 19 people living at the centre.
There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. 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 home is run.
People told us they felt safe. Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of harm or abuse. Staff were aware of people’s individual risks and how to minimise these. People’s medicines were managed safely. People felt there were adequate numbers of staff available. People felt staff had the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs.
Staff obtained consent from people before they provided care. People had a choice of meals and were supported to meet any specific dietary needs. People had access to other healthcare professionals to ensure their healthcare needs were met. People told us they felt involved in their care and treatment.
People said staff were kind, caring and treated them with dignity and respect. People had access to a number of different professionals and services to support their independence. People and relatives felt listened to and were able to provide feedback about the service. People and relatives said if they had any complaints these would be addressed by the registered manager.
People felt the management team were approachable and visible within the home. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The provider had management systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided.
There were 15 people staying at the centre at the time of our inspection, in order to receive rehabilitation services to assist with issues such as improvement in their mobility. Stays lasted a maximum of six weeks in most cases.
We found that people's consent to care was sought. We observed staff offering choice to people and respecting their decisions.
People received care which supported their needs. One person told us, 'If there's anything you can't manage they always help'.
People received enough food and drinks throughout the day, including snacks. People were happy with the quality of the food they received. One person told us, 'The food is pretty good'.
Staff were skilled in delivering care to people. We saw that call bells were responded to promptly and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
The home had a complaints procedure in place. Most people we spoke with were aware of how they could make a complaint.
We found that people were supported in making day to day decisions about the care they received. One person told us, 'They help me to set things to help myself'. People's values and diversity were respected and promoted.
The care people received was reflected in their care plans. One person told us, 'I'm so happy here. The care is marvellous'. People's health needs were supported.
Staff were clear about their responsibility to report issues which might affect people's safety and wellbeing. People told us they felt safe staying at the centre.
We found that staff were recruited in a safe way and correct checks were carried out to ensure their suitability to care for people. People we spoke with told us that staff were skilled. One person said, 'Wonderful staff. I wish I could take them home with me'.
Quality checks and audits were in place to ensure people were receiving a good standard of care. We found that people's opinions were sought about the service.
We saw that everyone had a written care plan. People told us they or their relatives had been involved in agreeing their care plans. Staff were knowledgeable about people's individual care needs.
In the majority of cases we saw that care plans were detailed and risks to people's health and well being had been considered. We also saw that care plans and risks to people's health were reviewed but further work was required in some areas such as falls management.
We saw that the quality of care was reviewed by the manager, but further work in this area was required to show how people were involved and that systems were in place to monitor that they met the law.