St Catherine's Bungalows

Updated 4 February 2022

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.

As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.

This inspection took place on 28 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.

Updated 4 February 2022

About the service

St Catherine’s Bungalows are residential ‘care homes’, providing personal care and accommodation for up to 16 people. They are part of Father Hudson’s Care, which is the social care agency of the Catholic Archdiocese of Birmingham, a registered charity. St Catherine’s Bungalows consists of three purpose built separate bungalows. Each bungalow provides care to people living with a learning disability, autism and complex physical health care needs. Each bungalow has individual, ensuite, bedrooms, a communal lounge, sensory room, dining area and kitchen. Gardens are accessible to people. At the time of our inspection, 16 people lived at the home.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

At our last inspection we found a breach of the regulations related to good governance. At this inspection, we found sufficient improvements had been made to meet the regulations.

Since our last inspection, improvements had been made in the provider’s quality assurance processes and systems. The registered manager had increased their knowledge about how to undertake checks that identified where improvements were required and acted on these.

Systems were in place for people and their relatives to give their feedback on the service. People and relatives were happy with the services and had no complaints.

Staff knew people well and how to protect them from risks of harm of injury, such as falls. Overall, risk management plans gave staff the information they needed. However, some improvements were required to ensure people had skin integrity risk management plans so staff had the information to refer to. Staff did not consistently complete important records such as signatures on medicine administration records, fluid charts or record when people were repositioned. The registered manager had, and was, taking action to ensure improvements were made.

The home was clean and tidy, and staff had been trained on how to prevent risks of cross infection.

There were sufficient trained staff on shift. Further training was planned for staff where the registered manager had identified knowledge needed to be increased or refreshed.

People had their needs assessed before they moved into the bungalows. People had plans of care relevant to their needs. Staff supported people to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and procedures in the service supported this practice.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Best interests’ meetings took place when required.

Positive caring interactions took place and staff involved people in everyday activities. Relatives felt their family member was well cared for and had no complaints. Staff supported people to be involved in activities they enjoyed.

As part of a thematic review, we carried out a survey with the registered manager at this inspection. This considered whether the service used any restrictive intervention practices (restraint, seclusion and segregation) when supporting people. The service used positive behaviour support principles to support people in the least restrictive way. No restrictive intervention practices were used.

Rating at the last inspection

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 9 October 2018) and there were breaches of the regulations. The provider submitted actions plans to tell us what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made. The rating for the service is now Good.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the rating of the last inspection.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk