We carried out a review of the data available to us about Broomhouse Nursing Home 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 Broomhouse Nursing Home, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes.
The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.
People were supported 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 systems in the service supported
this practice.
Systems were in place to monitor the safety of the service which ensured peoples' risks were mitigated and lessons were learnt. Action plans had been put into place to ensure the service continuously improved. People were supported by staff who routinely promoted privacy and dignity. Comments from relatives and people were positive.
People had access to a range of health and social care professionals for advice, treatment and support. Nurses and care staff monitored people's health and well-being effectively and responded quickly to any concerns. Medicines were managed, stored, administered and disposed of safely. Nurses had their competencies checked at regular intervals they also received clinical supervision from the registered manager and had opportunity to attend training to maintain their professional registration.
Staff were recruited and trained to a good standard. Staff received supervision and had checks on their knowledge and skills. There was enough staff to meet people’s needs.
Quality monitoring systems were in place and the registered manager had responsibility to report and significant events including accidents and incidents to the quality monitoring manager.
The service was safe clean, tidy and well maintained. People had access to a complaints procedure which had been developed in pictorial and easy read format for those people who found written procedures hard to understand.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was good (published 26 July 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Broomhouse Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
There was a registered manager at this service. 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.
At our last inspection in December 2015 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’ overall.
People, relatives and staff were confident people received safe care. The environment was mostly clean, safe and well maintained. Related improvements in progress and emergency planning measures helped to further ensure this.
People were protected from the risk of harm or abuse. Risks to people’s safety associated with their health and environment were assessed before they received care and regularly reviewed. Staff supported people in a safe, skilled and timely manner. People’s medicines were safely managed. Staffing arrangements helped to ensure people’s safety.
People and relatives were happy with the care provided. People were supported to maintain and improve their health and nutrition by staff who were supported, trained and knowledgeable to ensure this. Staff consulted with and supported people to access external health professionals when they needed to. Staff understood and followed related instructions for people’s care when required.
Staff understood and followed the Mental Capacity Act (2005) to obtain people’s consent or appropriate authorisation for their care when required; to ensure their rights and best interests.
Staff were caring, treated people with respect and promote their dignity people’s dignity, independence and rights in care.
People and their families were informed and supported to understand the care they could expect to receive from staff at the service. Staff knew people well and had good relationships with them and their families. Staff understood and they followed what was important to people for their care and relationships with others.
People received personalised, timely care that met with their known wishes, lifestyle preferences and promoted their social inclusion. Exploration of ways to help further tailor people’s individual arrangements for their occupation and leisure was agreed.
Staff often supported people to engage and participate in home life and the extended community; to do things they enjoyed there that were meaningful to them. Environmental equipment, specialist aids and adjustments for vehicle access helped to promote people’s independence.
Staff shared relevant information about people’s care with external care providers when required; to ensure people’s personalised and consistent care if this needed to be provided outside the service.
People and relatives knew how to make a complaint about the service if they needed to. The provider regularly sought the views of people, relatives and staff; to inform and make service improvements when required.
The service was well managed and led. Staff were informed, supported and understood their role and responsibilities for people’s care. The provider’s governance arrangements helped to ensure the quality and safety of people’s care, ongoing accountability and continuous service improvement.
We completed an unannounced inspection of Broomhouse Nursing Home on 18 December 2014. Broomhouse Nursing Home is registered to provide care for up to 40 people who require nursing or personal care and supports people with learning disabilities.
The manager had been registered with the Care Quality Commission since 2010. 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.
At our previous inspection in October 2013 we identified a breach in regulations relating to the management of medicines. Following this the provider sent an action plan telling us about the improvements they intended to make. During this inspection we found those improvements had been made.
At this inspection the people who used the service told us they felt safe and well looked after. Families we spoke with felt reassured that the care their relatives received was safe and they spoke positively about the staff who worked at the home. However, we found improvements were required to identify and refer potential incidents to the local safeguarding authority and ensure people had plans in place to protect them when required.
People’s health and care needs were well managed by staff who were supported in their role by effective supervision and training. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of individual people’s needs including needs relating to nutrition and hydration. Appropriate arrangements were in place under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 for people who were not able to give consent to aspects of their care and treatment.
People told us, and we observed throughout our inspection, that people using the service and staff enjoyed each other’s company and had fun together. Staff noticed and checked if people appeared unwell. People we spoke to felt understood by staff and we saw that people were encouraged to be independent and were treated with respect.
Throughout the day we saw people engaged in a variety of activities that were of interest to them. People were also supported to maintain contact with their families and friends and the local community. People had opportunities to share their ideas and suggestions about the service, and raise concerns if they needed to.
The manager was committed to an open and transparent leadership style and as a result people we spoke with found him approachable. The manager was supported by senior staff who were encouraged to value their own staff teams. Procedures for auditing and monitoring the quality of services were in place, however we found some aspects of monitoring were not up to date and had been temporarily affected by other developments taking place in the service.
We saw that people were supported to make simple decisions and when people were unable to make more complex decisions for themselves the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.
We saw that people's care records contained detailed information about their needs and they had access to a range of health and social care professionals. Care and treatment was planned in a way that ensured each person's individual safety and wellbeing.
We found that although systems were in place to manage the risks associated with medicines, we saw that they were ineffective during our inspection. This meant that the provider was unable to identify if some people's medicines had been given as prescribed.
We observed positive interactions between people using the service and staff who responded appropriately when they became distressed or unsettled. Staff were well supported in their responsibility to deliver care and treatment appropriately.
We saw that there was a complaints system in place to handle complaints effectively.
Most people told us they liked living at the home. We observed people readily approaching staff and chatting openly to them. Where people had been out they were eager to tell staff who had not accompanied them what they had been doing.
We looked at a sample of peoples bedrooms and talked to people about some of their interests. The rooms were individual to each person containing family photographs and the possessions which were important to them.
Relatives told us the home did keep them informed of significant events and that they had confidence in the management of the home. Relatives confirmed to us that they were asked for their opinions about the home.