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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service.
This was an unannounced inspection. The Briars is part of a charitable trust that provides care and accommodation for older people. The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. At the time of our inspection, 32 people were living at the service.
People’s safety was being compromised in some areas. Incidents of physical conflict between people and people’s capacity to make decisions were not always recorded appropriately. Techniques needed to support a person who could display behaviour that challenged others were not shown in their care plan. Risks associated with a person using the stairs had not been assessed and doors giving access to the garden put people at risk of falling as they could not be secured in the open position.
Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Any restrictions placed on them were done in their best interest using appropriate safeguards, although these were not always recorded.
For people who would not be able to tell staff when they were in pain, there was no information for staff about the signs and body language they may display. One person had an injury which staff were not aware of. Another person had not been referred to a specialist after having multiple falls and, having broken their hip, was being supported to weight-bear without having had an assessment by a specialist. People were supported appropriately to drink enough, but the recording of people’s fluids was not effective.
Care plans initially contained a lot of detail about action staff should take to meet people’s needs. However, as plans were reviewed, this level of information reduced, which meant people may not have received consistent care and support. Staff knew how to support people with their continence, but this was not recorded in people’s care plans. A wide range of activities was available, but people’s participation activities was not recorded effectively.
People and their family members praised the standard of care people received and told us staff had the skills and knowledge to meet their needs. A doctor who had regular contact with the service said, “If I am asked would the home pass the friends and family test, the answer is absolutely. I have total confidence in this home and its staff”.
A relative told us “This home must be one of the best, if not the best on the island, the staff are brilliant, nothing is too much trouble, it is clean, the food is fantastic and people get real care and attention to detail”.
The building had been extended and redecorated recently and guidance had been followed to make the environment suitable for people living with dementia. The garden could be accessed by people who used wheelchairs and had won a national award for its suitability for older people.
There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and recruitment practices were safe. Staff were suitably trained and supported. They received regular one-to-one sessions of supervision and annual appraisals where objectives were set for the coming year. Staff knew what action to take if the fire alarm sounded and a fire officer described the service’s procedures as “faultless”.
People were offered a choice of varied and nutritious meals, food was available throughout the day and staff made mealtimes a pleasant and social experience. Catering staff were well informed about people’s conditions or medication that affected their ability to eat and drink.
People told us they were happy at the service and talked about it warmly. One person said, “It’s beautiful here and [the staff] are very kind”. Another described it as “very homely”. Staff knew people well and were skilled in providing effective support in a caring and compassionate way. The service was part of an initiative to promote caring relationships, which its policies and staff training supported.
People were able to receive care and support at times that suited them. They were involved in decisions about their care during review meetings and were asked for their views of the service in residents’ meetings and through survey questionnaires. Where changes were needed, we saw these were made. Relatives told us if they had any concerns the manager and staff would respond promptly and people knew how to make a complaint.
Feedback from people, relatives and staff showed the service had a positive, open culture. Staff engaged well with external professionals, welcomed visitors and had strong links with the community. These included charitable groups and a local school, whose children worked on joint projects with people, such as the building of a first world war commemorative garden.
People were cared for by staff who were well motivated and led by an established management team. The service had achieved Investors in People accreditation, which is a government initiative to support individuals and teams to “be the very best they can be”.
Senior representatives of the provider visited The Briars each month and were actively involved in monitoring and supporting the performance of the service. A range of audits was conducted to monitor the quality of service provided. A recent audit of care plans had identified some were not up to date and staff were working to update these.
We found a number of breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.