Archived: Berkeley Village

Updated 5 August 2017

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 10 July 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one adult social care inspector, a specialist advisor and two experts by experience in the care of people who have a physical disability, mental health condition and older people. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We undertook observations in communal areas of the home including observations of the lunchtime service. We undertook a tour of the building which included lounges, bathrooms, the kitchen and some people’s bedrooms. We spoke with 13 people who used the service, four visitors to the home and four professionals who regularly visited the home. We also spoke with one registered nurse, a psychologist, four support workers, a member of housekeeping staff, the chef, a member of the administration team, the home manager and the registered manager.

Prior to the inspection we looked at the information we held about the service. This included notifications that the provider is required to send to us by law, any feedback, any safeguarding investigations, compliments or complaints. We also looked at the Provider Information Return (PIR) we asked the provider to submit prior to this inspection. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We checked a number of records relating to the management of the home these included five staff files, six care records, duty rotas, audits, surveys and feedback about the home.

Updated 5 August 2017

This inspection took place on 10 July 2017. This was the first comprehensive inspection since the service registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 July 2016. During this inspection we made one recommendation in relation to the storage, handling of food and the cleanliness of the kitchen.

Berkeley Village is registered to provide accommodation for persons who required nursing or personal care and treatment of disease disorder and injury for up to 24 people. There were 16 people living in the home on the day of our inspection.

The home is situated on the outskirts of Preston close to local amenities and public transport links to the city centre. Accommodation is situated over two floors with communal lounge/dining areas as well as three quiet lounges and two sensory rooms. All bedrooms benefit from ensuite facilities as well as coordinated bedroom furniture and personal televisions. There was access to safe outside space for people to use.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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. The registered manager is also supported by a home manager.

The home demonstrated the safe storage, handling and administration of medicines. Records had been completed in full and we observed medicines administered by staff.

People told us they were safe living in the home. Staff were aware of the procedures to take when dealing with any allegations of abuse.

Staff told us there was enough staff to provide quality time to people who used the service. We saw a duty rota that demonstrated the skills mix of staff in place to cover each shift. Safe recruitment practices were in place. Records identified the appropriate checks that had taken place to ensure people were cared for by an appropriate staff team.

A number of areas in the kitchen required cleaning and guidance for staff about entering the kitchen was lacking. The provider responded quickly to concerns raised about the cleanliness and storage of food in the kitchen.

Staff told us they had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s individual needs. Records we looked at confirmed relevant training had been undertaken by the staff.

There was evidence of involvement of other professionals in people’s care and monitoring. Professionals told us staff involved them in monitoring and reviews of people who used the service.

Systems were in place to ensure people were protected from unlawful restrictions. Relevant capacity assessments had been completed and applications to the assessing authorities had been completed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice

It was clear from the interactions that staff knew people’s needs well and how best to support them. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. Where personal care was delivered this was done in the privacy of people’s bedrooms or bathrooms.

Care files were clear, comprehensive and reflected people’s individual needs. Daily records were kept of people’s personal care, food and fluid intakes and activities undertaken. There was a comprehensive activity programme available for people who used the service. We saw pictures of activities taking place on display in the home.

There was evidence that complaints were dealt with appropriately and guidance to deal with complaints was available to people who used the service, relatives and staff. We saw evidence of complimentary feedback about the care people received in the home.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service provided were in place. The registered manager demonstrated her knowledge and leadership, skills and management of the home.

Staff told us team meetings were taking place. Surveys were completed for people who used the service, family, professionals and staff on the care provided at the home. The provider had systems to gather people’s views.