Brigstock House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People’s relatives told us they thought their family members were safe living at Brigstock House. Comments included, “I do feel they [family member] is safe, they [staff] are very good, very kind,” and “I am very glad we chose this place, I know they [family member] is safe and cared for”, “I don’t have any concerns about staffing.” Throughout our inspection we noted people looked safe, happy, content and well cared for. We saw staff were supporting people appropriately and there were always staff members in the communal areas to support people. Relatives confirmed people were all treated with respect and supported in their lifestyle choices.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

People’s relatives told us they thought the environment was safe and well maintained.

Staff received regular training in fire prevention, they confirmed there were regular fire drills and fire alarm tests. Staff felt the home was safe for people and they told us they carried out risk assessments for people to help maintain their safety both in the environment and out in the community. We saw evidence in people’s care plans and risk assessments that supported this.

The home was seen to be safe, well maintained and comfortable for people to live in. People’s bedrooms were individually decorated to meet their preferences and needs. Some communal areas of the home such as the bathrooms needed refreshment together with replacement flooring.

There were audits and checks taking place to ensure the environment was safe. A recent fire risk assessment was in place and fire drills were held so that staff were able to support people appropriately in the event of an emergency. Fire equipment was regularly maintained and serviced. Some fire extinguishers had recently been replaced following a maintenance check. Environmental audits took place to check for areas requiring improvement. People had personalised evacuation plans in place so that staff knew how they needed to be supported to safely evacuate the building.

People were not able to verbally tell us about staffing, however we observed that enough staff who knew people well were present in the service. Relatives told us when they visited their family members at Brigstock House, there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Comments received from relatives were positive and reflected a caring and responsible attitude that staff had in caring for their family members.

Staff received support through supervision. This included one to one meetings and team meetings. The deputy manager and the area manager [the managers] both acknowledged the frequency of these formal meetings did not meet the provider’s own policy to do with staff supervision. The managers agreed to implement immediately regular six to eight weekly individual supervision meetings for every staff member. They also told us they would introduce a new supervision format that set out the agenda for supervision meetings and included the direct work staff undertook with people. These measures when fully implemented should ensure staff have the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support. We were happy from staff comments we received that they felt appropriately supported by managers with their work. We will monitor the progress of this work and will review it either at the next inspection or earlier if the need arises. Staff told us they received training in core areas such as with learning disability, dealing with distressed behaviour, safeguarding, first aid, infection control, the Mental Capacity Act, food hygiene, equality and diversity, epilepsy, autism and the safe administration of medicines.

We checked the staffing rotas and found there were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to meet people's needs. This was confirmed by our observations.

A training matrix was in place that evidenced staff received all the training referred to above. Accident and incident reporting processes were in place, understood by staff and maintained to date. There was evidence of robust recruitment procedures. All potential staff were required to complete an application form and attend an interview, so their knowledge, skills and values could be assessed. The provider undertook checks on new staff before they started work. This included checking their identity, their eligibility to work in the UK, obtaining at least two references from previous employers and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks. The DBS helps employers make safer recruitment decisions and prevent unsuitable people from working with vulnerable people. There were systems in place to review staffing levels against people’s dependency, these were reviewed regularly and inline with people’s changing needs.

People’s relatives told us they thought the home was clean and well maintained. They said they were happy that their family members were kept safe in this respect. Comments from relatives included: “I have seen staff use PPE, such as gloves and hand sanitizer”, “Always seems clean and tidy to me” and “People are kept as safe as possible by staff at Brigstock House.”

Staff told us they received good training in infection control and food hygiene that was regularly refreshed and which helped them maintain good practices in these areas of infection control. Staff were well aware of their responsibilities to ensure good practice and adherence to the policies and procedures in place.

We undertook a tour of the premises and found them to be well maintained and tidy, clean and free from infection. People’s rooms were personalised to suit their wishes. Inspection of fridges and freezers demonstrated food was labelled with opening dates as required. Some communal areas of the home such as the bathrooms needed refreshment together with replacement flooring. The area manager told us this work would be carried out immediately. We saw these issues had been added to the maintenance list as a priority.

There was an up to date infection control and food hygiene policy in place that staff were aware about. Staff received training in infection control and food hygiene that was refreshed regularly. Appropriate cleaning schedules were in place and carried out to help minimise the risk of infections.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.