Archived: Badgers Croft Care Home

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at. Most of the people living at Badger's Croft were unable to communicate verbally but they were able to make some of their preferences known using other forms of communication.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe because staff had been trained to recognise and act on safeguarding concerns. As some people could not tell staff if they did not feel safe, staff monitored people's behaviour to alert them to concerns. This meant safeguarding concerns were acted on in a timely fashion to keep people safe.

The service had used risk assessments to inform their support plans. Where possible, risks were addressed without limiting people's freedom and independence. Support plans clearly identified how staff should provide care and strategies to avoid anxiety and distress for the person concerned. This ensured staff had comprehensive and consistent guidance to follow when supporting people.

We found the premises were clean, tidy and safe. Staff told us maintenance requests were responded to quickly.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which apply to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Consideration of DoLS principles was reflected in people's support plans. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

Staff had current training in topics identified as mandatory by the provider. This included safeguarding, health and safety, fire and first aid. Training specific to the needs of the people living at the home was also provided. Staff were supported to be effective through regular meetings with the registered manager to discuss their training and support needs.

The service was effective because each person had a health action plan that helped staff to ensure their health needs were addressed. These documents were regularly updated. We saw appointment records that showed people had regular access to health and social care professionals.

Is the service caring?

People were not able to tell us if they were happy with the care they received due to their complex needs and limited verbal communication. We spoke with two relatives and one said, 'very good ' they do their best with her'. Another relative said, 'they know her well' and 'it's amazing what they are doing for her'. A member of staff told us, 'If my mum was here I would be happy.'

During our inspection we saw staff communicating and interacting with people in a respectful and caring way. People smiled and laughed when they interacted with staff. Wherever possible people were asked for their permission before care and support was provided. Where they were not able to give permission the appropriate steps were taken to ensure their best interests were being met. Staff were helped to do this as support plans contained information on assisting people to make decisions. Staff ensured they informed each person what was about to happen when care was being given.

Is the service responsive?

People's support plans contained information on their preferences and priorities. The service was responsive because these plans were reviewed regularly to ensure changes were recorded and care adapted. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's preferences and respected their wishes.

Although there was a complaints procedure in place, staff had identified it was necessary to monitor people's behaviour to check they were happy as they could not use the complaints procedure independently. The relatives we spoke with felt the staff communicated well with them. This showed the service responded to feedback.

Is the service well led?

The staff told us they felt the registered manager listened to them and acted on their suggestions. They felt they received good support and direction. From discussions with the registered manager it was clear that she was routinely reviewing practice and implementing learning to improve the support provided.

The service was well led because the manager regularly undertook audits to check the quality of the service being provided. She then acted on the outcomes of these audits in a timely fashion.

We found that additional daily medication record checks had been completed to ensure that staff had recorded correctly when people were absent from the home. There was also a bi-weekly medication record check, a monthly medication audit and an annual audit by the supplying pharmacy.

When we asked about the quality of care provided, one relative told us 'I'm very pleased, I know (person) is well cared for'.

We observed staff offering people choices with their daily routines consistently through the visit.

We observed care being delivered in line with people's individual care plans. One relative told us 'they make sure all (person's) needs are catered for'.

We observed staff administering medicines in a competent manner. One relative told us 'they keep me informed of any changes to the meds'. We found discrepancies in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from the previous day and we could not be assured that MARS charts were being checked regularly for discrepancies.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs and to ensure that people were able to access the community. One relative told us they found staff to be 'very helpful and very caring'.

There was a complaints procedure in place and staff were observant in picking up when people wanted to make changes to their care. One relative told us 'I've had no problems whatsoever but I would talk to (person's) keyworker or the manager'.