We carried out a review of the data available to us about Bracebridge Court 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 Bracebridge Court, you can give feedback on this service.
Bracebridge Court provides accommodation for 66 people in a residential setting over two floors. There were 62 people living at the home when we inspected the service. Bracebridge Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
There was an experienced registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
At our previous inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. We found that the service needed to make some improvements in its governance procedures, and rated Well-led as ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the provider had made all the improvements necessary, and we have rated the service as ‘Good’ in all areas.
People felt safe using the service and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and keep people safe. There were procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Checks were carried out on staff during the recruitment process to make sure they were suitable to work with people at the home.
There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular checks on their competency. Yearly appraisal meetings were conducted in which their performance and development was discussed.
The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe. Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, their daily routines and preferences.
The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was being restricted in accordance with DoLS and the MCA.
Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.
People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored. We found people were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified.
People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People were supported to make decisions about their environment and choose how their bedroom was decorated.
People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints were responded to in a timely way to people’s satisfaction. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. In addition, people who used the service and their relatives were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run.
People described the home as being well managed and well maintained. Quality assurance procedures were in place to identify where the service needed to make improvements. Where improvements were identified these were acted upon.
The provider worked closely in partnership with a range of external organisations that were leaders in their field, to continuously improve the standard of care offered by staff at Bracebridge Court.
Bracebridge Court provides accommodation for people in a residential setting. There were 66 people living at the home when we inspected the service. People were cared for over two floors at the home.
A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.
There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely. However, improvements needed to be made in documenting the application of creams to people’s skin to ensure the medicine they received was recorded.
Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, their daily routines and preferences. However, we found care records were not always up to date and did not consistently document the care people received. We found people were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified.
Quality assurance procedures were in place to identify where the service needed to make improvements. However, we found the manager did not always act on the identified areas in a timely way to implement the necessary improvements to the service.
Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to explain the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns. All necessary checks had been completed before new staff started work at the home to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with the people who lived there. The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe.
There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular supervision and appraisal meetings in which their performance and development was discussed.
The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was being restricted in accordance with DoLS and the MCA.
Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.
People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored.
People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People were supported to make decisions about their environment and choose how their bedroom was decorated.
People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints were responded to in a timely way to people’s satisfaction. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. In addition, people who used the service and their relatives were given the opportunity to share their views about how the service was run.
We made a compliance action in relation to this and received a report from the registered manager that told us what they intended to do to achieve compliance.
We followed up on this area of non compliance by undertaking an inspection on 5 November 2013. During this inspection we spoke with two people who were receiving a respite service, a relative, a member of care staff and the registered manager. We also looked at five sets of care records for respite clients. We found that the area of non compliance identified at the previous inspection had been addressed and the service was now compliant in this area.
People and a relative we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support they or their family member received whilst staying at the home for respite care. "It seems to be very good care, I know he's well looked after" and "I'm ok thank you, it's ok here" were comments made to us.
People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. Comments made included, "Very helpful and kind, very caring and helpful' and 'I think they are very understanding.'
We saw that people appeared comfortable and relaxed in their surroundings. Staff were respectful to people, calling them by their name and showing respect, kindness and compassion for people. People appeared at ease and relaxed around staff and were able to approach them freely. We noted that staff engaged people in jovial conversation. One person told us that they appreciated this commenting, "I like to have a laugh and a joke, and I think it goes a long way.'
Staff appeared confident in meeting people's needs, and appeared to know them well. People told us that they felt that the staff were kind and caring and understood their needs. 'I couldn't ask for a better group of staff, they have all been kind' and 'I could not fault anyone' were comments made.
There were processes in place for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service provided for people.
We found that improvements were necessary with regards to some people's care records. We have made a compliance action in relation to this.