Archived: Bournville House

Updated 7 January 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 8 December 2015 and was announced. The inspection was carried out by two inspectors.

Before the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications, which are notifications the provider must send us to inform us of certain events. The provider had sent us a Provider Information Return (PIR) before the inspection. A PIR is a form that asks the provider to give key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also contacted the local authority and commissioners for information they held about the service. This helped us with planning the inspection.

Prior to the inspection we sent questionnaires to people, their relatives and health and social care professionals to seek their views on the service provided. Of the 30 surveys we sent, we received 10 responses. We visited the agency’s office on 8 December 2015 and spoke with the registered manager, the service co-ordinator, five people who used the service, two relatives and three care workers. We looked at a range of records that included two records relating to people’s care, complaints, staff training, minutes of meetings held and systems used for monitoring the quality of the service.

Updated 7 January 2016

The inspection was announced and took place on 8 December 2015. The provider had short notice that an inspection would take place. This was because the organisation provides a domiciliary care service to people living within an Extra Care housing scheme and we needed to ensure that the registered manager would be available to assist with the inspection The service enables people to be cared for in their own property living within a housing complex with support from staff where required. There were 59 self-contained apartments with 67 people living there with people having access to communal facilities available on site. At the time of this inspection 14 people were receiving a personal care service from the provider. At the last inspection in January 2014, we found the provider was meeting all of the requirements of the regulations we reviewed.

There was a registered manager in post who also managed two other registered services. 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.

Staff sickness over the last couple of months had impacted on the delivery of care and support people received. This meant people did not always receive their calls at a time they preferred. Most people told us they received their care from a consistent group of staff although this was dependent on staff attendance. People told us they felt safe living at Bournville House. Staff had received training and knew what to do if they suspected a person they supported was being abused or was at risk of harm. Risks to people were identified, assessed and reviewed to ensure their on-going safety. Staff went through a thorough recruitment procedure before they commenced supporting people in their own homes.

People were supported by staff that had the skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. Staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for and knew how to recognise if people’s needs changed. People were supported to make choices and decisions and gave their consent to any care provided. People received assistance with meal preparation where required and were supported to access health services if needed.

Most people considered they were supported by staff that were kind and compassionate. People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew how to promote people’s rights, choices and independence. People’s needs were assessed and their care and support was planned and reviewed in partnership with them and other key people involved in their care. Staff knew what action to take should a person’s needs change. People had access to information about how to complain about the service although not everyone considered staff responded well to any complaints or concerns they raised.

Most people considered the service was managed well. The provider had systems in place to enable people to share their views of the service provided and to monitor the quality of service.