Bridgewood Mews is registered to accommodate and provide nursing and personal care to a maximum 20 people. People who live there may have a variety of complex physical health needs, including Huntingdon’s disease. At the time of our inspection 18 people were using the service.
Our inspection was unannounced and took place on the 20 and 21 April 2015. At our last inspection in July 2014 the provider was meeting all the requirements of the regulations and was given a ‘Good’ overall rating.
The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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.
We found that medicines management within the service were unsafe. The provider had failed to handle, store and administer prescribed medicines in such a way as to maintain and promote peoples good health. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
There were systems in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Staff had a clear knowledge of how to protect people and understood their responsibilities for reporting any incidents, accidents or issues of concern.
The provider ensured that there were suitable number of staff on duty with the skills, experience and training in order to meet people’s needs at all times.
Staff had access to a range of training to provide them with the level of skills and knowledge to deliver care safely and efficiently. Staff were encouraged by the provider to undertake training in addition to the standard level of training they were routinely provided with.
The provider supported the rights of people subject to a Deprivation of Liberties Safeguard (DoLS). Staff were able to give an account of what this meant when supporting the person and how they complied with the terms of the authorisation.
People were supported to take food and drinks in sufficient quantities to prevent malnutrition and dehydration.
People’s cultural and spiritual needs had been considered and we saw that people were supported to fulfil these.
Staff interacted with people in a positive manner and used a variety of communication methods to establish their consent and/or understanding. Staff maintained people’s privacy and dignity whilst encouraging them to remain as independent as possible.
Care plans contained information about people’s abilities, preferences and support needs. However, we saw in some records they had not been updated and reviewed in a manner that gave the reader absolute clarity about the persons current needs.
People were involved in a range of activities, both within the service and in the community, centred on people’s individual abilities and interests.
Systems were in place for people and their relatives to raise their concerns or complaints.
Structures for supervision allowing staff to understand their roles and responsibilities were in place.
Staff told us the registered manager actively promoted an open culture amongst them and made information available to them to raise concerns or whistle blow.
The registered manager and the provider undertook regular checks on the quality and safety of the service. However, the issues we found during our inspection had not been identified through the providers own quality assurance systems.