The Broad Group - 85 Bath Road

Updated 10 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 17 October 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed information available to us about this service. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed notifications that had been sent to us. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law.

We requested information about the home from Healthwatch and the local authority. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion, which promotes the views and experiences of people who use health and social care. The local authority has responsibility for funding people who use the service and monitoring its safety and quality.

During the inspection we spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and we saw how staff supported the people they cared for. Not everyone at the home was able to speak to us directly. We have therefore not used quotes within this report and the examples we have given are brief because we respect people’s right to confidentiality. We spoke with two people’s relatives to find out their views of the care provided to their family members. We also spoke with the registered manager, a care staff member and the provider’s representative.

We reviewed three people’s care records, saw the way people’s medicines were managed and looked at staff recruitments checks. We saw records which showed us how the registered manager monitored the quality of the care provided and the actions they took to develop the service further. This included questionnaires completed by people and their relatives, minutes of staff meetings and records showing how incidents were monitored. We checked people’s health records, so we could be sure people were receiving the care they needed. We saw there were procedures in place to support people and other agencies to raise any complaints they may have.

Updated 10 November 2018

The Broad Group - 85 Bath Road 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. The Broad Group - 85 Bath Road provides accommodation and care for up to five people, across three floors. There were three people living at the home at the time of our inspection.

At the last inspection in March 2016 the services was rated 'Good'. At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'. The evidence continued to support the rating of Good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

There was a registered manager in place at the time of our inspection. 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.

People continued to enjoy living at the home and to have their safety needs met by staff who knew their individual safety risks well. Staff understood when people’s safety needs changed and responded to these, so people could maintain as much independence as safely possible. Checks were made on the suitability of staff before they came to work at the home, to promote people’s safety.

There were enough staff to care for people. More staff were being recruited to meet the needs of people coming to live at the home. Action was taken to manage people’s medicines safely and to reduce the chance of infections occurring. Systems were in place to monitor and learn from any accidents and untoward incidents, if these occurred.

People and their relatives were encouraged to meet staff and visit the home so they could make informed decisions about moving in. Staff considered the advice of other health and social care professionals when assessing if they could meet people’s care and well-being needs.

We saw people were confident to ask for the help they wanted. People’s relatives were complimentary about how staff used their skills and knowledge to care for their family members. The training staff had been supported to do matched the needs of the people living at the home. We saw staff used these skills so people’s individual needs were met, and so people were empowered to make their own decisions where possible.

Some people liked to make their own drinks and to decide what they would like to eat with support from staff. Staff understood the links between people’s health and nutrition. Staff supported people to have enough to eat and drink so they would remain well. People’s relatives told us they were confident staff would assist their family members to enjoy the best health possible. People’s relatives advised us they were consulted about important health decisions for their family members.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The compassionate approach of staff was highlighted by people’s relatives, and we saw people enjoyed spending time with the staff who cared for them. Staff spoke warmly about the people they supported and wanted them to be happy. People were encouraged to make their own day to day decisions about the care they wanted. Staff made this as easy as possible for people, by using their preferred methods of communication. Staff promoted people’s right to dignity, independence and privacy in the way they cared for them.

Care was planned to reflect people’s individual preferences and needs. Staff checked to make sure people’s preferences had not changed over time. When this happened, staff adapted their plans to meet people’s emerging needs. The views of people’s relatives and other health and social care professions were listened to, to help to ensure people’s care was planned in the best way for them.

None of the relatives we spoke with had wanted to make any complaints about the care provided, as they considered it to be good. We saw there were systems in place to support people to raise any concerns they had or to make any complaints.

The registered manager spent time providing care to people, so they could be assured people were receiving good quality care. People’s relatives and staff told us any suggestions for developing people’s care further were listened to.

Checks were made by the provider and registered manager so they could be sure the people benefited from living in a home where planned development was focused on the experiences of people who lived there, and responded to their changing needs.