Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Bracebridge Court, Atherstone.

Bracebridge Court in Atherstone is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, caring for adults over 65 yrs, dementia, physical disabilities and sensory impairments. The last inspection date here was 13th September 2018

Bracebridge Court is managed by Runwood Homes Limited who are also responsible for 58 other locations

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Bracebridge Court
      Friary Road
      Atherstone
      CV9 3AL
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01827712895

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2018-09-13
    Last Published 2018-09-13

Local Authority:

    Warwickshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

10th August 2018 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected Bracebridge Court on 10 August 2018. The inspection visit was unannounced.

Bracebridge Court provides accommodation for 66 people in a residential setting over two floors. There were 62 people living at the home when we inspected the service. Bracebridge Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

There was an experienced registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our previous inspection in February 2016 we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall. We found that the service needed to make some improvements in its governance procedures, and rated Well-led as ‘Requires Improvement’. At this inspection we found the provider had made all the improvements necessary, and we have rated the service as ‘Good’ in all areas.

People felt safe using the service and staff understood how to protect people from abuse and keep people safe. There were procedures to manage identified risks with people’s care and for managing people’s medicines safely. Checks were carried out on staff during the recruitment process to make sure they were suitable to work with people at the home.

There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular checks on their competency. Yearly appraisal meetings were conducted in which their performance and development was discussed.

The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe. Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, their daily routines and preferences.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was being restricted in accordance with DoLS and the MCA.

Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored. We found people were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified.

People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People were supported to make decisions about their environment and choose how their bedroom was decorated.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints were responded to in a timely way to people’s satisfaction. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. In addition, people who used the service and their relatives were gi

10th February 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected Bracebridge Court on 10 February 2016. The inspection visit was unannounced.

Bracebridge Court provides accommodation for people in a residential setting. There were 66 people living at the home when we inspected the service. People were cared for over two floors at the home.

A requirement of the provider’s registration is that they have a registered manager. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. We refer to the registered manager as the manager in the body of this report.

There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were stored and administered safely. However, improvements needed to be made in documenting the application of creams to people’s skin to ensure the medicine they received was recorded.

Each person had a care and support plan with detailed information and guidance personal to them. Care plans included information on maintaining the person's health, their daily routines and preferences. However, we found care records were not always up to date and did not consistently document the care people received. We found people were supported with their health needs and had access to a range of healthcare professionals where a need had been identified.

Quality assurance procedures were in place to identify where the service needed to make improvements. However, we found the manager did not always act on the identified areas in a timely way to implement the necessary improvements to the service.

Staff received training in safeguarding adults and were able to explain the correct procedure to follow if they had concerns. All necessary checks had been completed before new staff started work at the home to make sure, as far as possible, they were safe to work with the people who lived there. The manager and staff identified risks to people who used the service and took action to manage identified risks and keep people safe.

There were enough staff employed at the service to care for people safely and effectively. New staff completed an induction programme when they started work to ensure they had the skills they needed to support people effectively. Staff received training and had regular supervision and appraisal meetings in which their performance and development was discussed.

The manager and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people were looked after in a way that did not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The manager had made applications to the local authority where people’s freedom was being restricted in accordance with DoLS and the MCA.

Care staff treated people with respect and dignity, and supported people to maintain their privacy and independence. People made choices about who visited them at the home. This helped people maintain personal relationships with people that were important to them.

People were encouraged to eat a varied diet that took account of their preferences and where necessary, their nutritional needs were monitored.

People were supported in a range of activities, both inside and outside the home. Staff were caring and encouraged people to be involved in decisions about their life and their support needs. People were supported to make decisions about their environment and choose how their bedroom was decorated.

People knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. Complaints were responded to in a timely way to people’s satisfaction. Complaints received were fully investigated and analysed so that the provider could learn from them. In addition, people who used the service and their relatives were giv

5th November 2013 - During an inspection to make sure that the improvements required had been made pdf icon

We carried out this inspection to assess whether or not improvements had been made following our last inspection visit to the service on 2 July 2013. At that inspection visit we found that people who had recently moved into the home or were staying at the home for respite care were at risk of receiving inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment. This was because there were no current care plans in place for one person who had recently moved in or for people who visited the home for a respite service.

We made a compliance action in relation to this and received a report from the registered manager that told us what they intended to do to achieve compliance.

We followed up on this area of non compliance by undertaking an inspection on 5 November 2013. During this inspection we spoke with two people who were receiving a respite service, a relative, a member of care staff and the registered manager. We also looked at five sets of care records for respite clients. We found that the area of non compliance identified at the previous inspection had been addressed and the service was now compliant in this area.

People and a relative we spoke with told us they were happy with the care and support they or their family member received whilst staying at the home for respite care. "It seems to be very good care, I know he's well looked after" and "I'm ok thank you, it's ok here" were comments made to us.

2nd July 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

During our visit we met some of the people that lived in the home and visiting relatives. We also met and spoke with the manager, the deputy manager, the cook and two members of care staff.

People told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. Comments made included, "Very helpful and kind, very caring and helpful” and “I think they are very understanding.”

We saw that people appeared comfortable and relaxed in their surroundings. Staff were respectful to people, calling them by their name and showing respect, kindness and compassion for people. People appeared at ease and relaxed around staff and were able to approach them freely. We noted that staff engaged people in jovial conversation. One person told us that they appreciated this commenting, "I like to have a laugh and a joke, and I think it goes a long way.”

Staff appeared confident in meeting people's needs, and appeared to know them well. People told us that they felt that the staff were kind and caring and understood their needs. “I couldn’t ask for a better group of staff, they have all been kind” and “I could not fault anyone” were comments made.

There were processes in place for monitoring and assessing the quality of the service provided for people.

We found that improvements were necessary with regards to some people's care records. We have made a compliance action in relation to this.

 

 

Latest Additions: