Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..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


Braeside Residential Care Home, Prudhoe.

Braeside Residential Care Home in Prudhoe is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care, learning disabilities and physical disabilities. The last inspection date here was 10th June 2017

Braeside Residential Care Home is managed by Braeside Residential Care Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Braeside Residential Care Home
      West Road
      Prudhoe
      NE42 6JB
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01661832886

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Requires Improvement
Effective: Requires Improvement
Caring: Requires Improvement
Responsive: Requires Improvement
Well-Led: Requires Improvement
Overall:

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2017-06-10
    Last Published 2017-06-10

Local Authority:

    Northumberland

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.

12th May 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Braeside Residential Care Home provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight adults with a learning disability. Nursing care is not provided. Five people currently use the service.

A manager was in place who had not yet applied to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. 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 manager had very recently been appointed and staff felt they were open and approachable. The manager had many ideas they were introducing to ensure people received individual care that met all of their needs.

Due to their health conditions and complex needs not all of the people who used the service were able to share their views about the support they received. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff who supported them. We had concerns however that there were not enough staff on duty at all times to promote choice and provide individual care to people.

Not all areas of the home were clean and well maintained for the comfort of people who used the service. Communal areas, the kitchen and bathroom were showing signs of wear and tear.

People were protected as staff had received training about safeguarding and knew how to respond to any allegation of abuse. Staff were provided with other training to give them some knowledge and insight in order to meet people’s care and support needs. A system was in place for staff to receive supervision and appraisal and there were robust recruitment processes being used when staff were employed. Accidents and incidents were regularly reviewed and action taken as required to keep people safe.

People had access to some health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. People at risk of poor nutrition or with mobility needs did not have current advice and guidance from appropriate professionals to ensure their needs were met. Other people received a varied diet. People received their medicines in a safe and timely way.

Braeside Residential Care Home was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People did not receive person centred care that enabled them to live a fulfilled life in the community with opportunities to learn new skills to maximise their potential and independence. There were some limited activities and outings.

Staff were kind, caring and compassionate with people they supported. Staff had developed good relationships with people and treated people with respect. Regular staff knew most people’s care and support needs but accurate information was not available for new staff. Care records and risk assessments were not all up to date and did not accurately reflect people’s needs. They lacked detailed guidance for staff and evidence of regular evaluation and review to keep people safe and to ensure all staff were aware of their current individual care and support needs.

People and their relatives had the opportunity to give their views about the service. A complaints procedure was available.

The home had a quality assurance programme to check the quality of care provided. The new provider and manager had identified and prioritised several actions that needed to take place in the home to ensure people received safe and individual care and to ensure its smooth running. However, the systems used to assess the quality of the service had not identified all the issues that we found during the inspection to ensure people received individual care that met their needs.

We found four breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. These related to safe care and treatment, staffing, person centred care and good governance.

You can see the action we told t

5th July 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

In this report the name of the registered manager does not appear, as the manager in post had not applied for CQC registration.

We spoke with relatives and healthcare professionals who visited the home regularly to find out their opinions of the care and support at the service. Relative’s comments included, “It’s very good, he’s well looked after and he’s very happy there” and “It’s a relaxed atmosphere there, it’s home from home.”

Healthcare professionals and people’s relatives were complimentary about the care and treatment and we found that where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements.

We found people’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plans.

We contacted a number of health and social care professionals to find out their opinion of the service. These included a GP, a contracts manager and a care manager. Comments included, “It’s a lovely home, I have no concerns clinically.” We concluded that people’s health, safety and welfare was protected because the provider worked in cooperation with others.

We found that people, staff and visitors were protected from unsafe or unsuitable equipment because the provider ensured that a maintenance timetable was in place.

We saw that people’s personal records, staff records and other records relevant to the management of the home were accurate and fit for purpose.

26th April 2012 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

A high proportion of people who used the service were unable to express their views on the care they received because of the nature of their condition. However, relatives who we approached were complimentary about the service. We also spoke with staff and observed their practices in order to determine how this care and support was carried out.

Because there weren’t any relatives visiting on the day of our inspection, we contacted four relatives by phone instead and their comments are included throughout the whole report. We wanted to find out their thoughts on the care provided at the home. Comments from two relatives included, “It’s home from home. The staff are very caring…It’s a happy place” and “The care is very good, I can’t fault it.” Another relative told us, “We really are pleased with the home. The staff are very patient. We are absolutely thrilled with the way that they treat every resident as an individual.”

We also spoke with a therapist who visited every week. This person told us, “There is a fun relationship between the staff and clients, it’s nice to see.”

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Braeside Residential Care Home provides accommodation and personal care and support for up to eight people, with learning or physical disabilities. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the service.

This inspection took place on 19 and 20 February 2015 and was unannounced. The last inspection we carried out at this service was in September 2014 when we found the provider was not meeting all of the regulations that we inspected, including cleanliness and infection control, management of medicines, the safety and suitability of premises, supporting workers and assessing and monitoring the quality of service provision. The provider submitted action plans linked to these regulations, stating how and by when they would meet the requirements. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made in all of the regulations that had previously been breached.

A registered manager is required under this service’s registration with the Care Quality Commission. The registered provider had taken on this role as he was in day to day charge of the service and care provision. 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.

None of the people who lived at the home were able to converse with us verbally due to their complex health conditions. They appeared comfortable in the presence of staff and their relatives told us they had no concerns about their safety or the care they received. Safeguarding procedures were in place to protect people from abuse and there were channels through which staff could raise concerns.

People’s needs and the risks that they were exposed to in their daily lives were assessed, and these were regularly reviewed. Regular health and safety checks were carried out on the building and aspects of care delivery, to ensure that the people, staff and visitors were protected.

Medicines were managed safely and recruitment processes were thorough and included checks to ensure that staff employed were of good character, appropriately skilled and physically and mentally fit. Staffing levels were appropriate and we were satisfied that people’s needs were met.

Staff training was under review and progress had been made in this area since our last inspection. Some training in key areas still needed to be undertaken. Supervisions were carried out regularly and some staff had received their annual appraisal within the last year, but not all. The provider told us he was in the process of addressing this.

CQC monitors the operation of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They are safeguards which exist to make sure people are cared for in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom, where they do not have the capacity to make informed choices themselves. Records showed the provider had applied for DoLS authorisations for each of the five people living at the home and these had been granted. Although people’s ability to make informed decisions had been assessed, and the ‘best interest’ decision process was followed in practice, these decisions were not always fully documented within people’s care records. The provider gave his assurances that records held in relation to this would be improved.

People’s general healthcare needs were met and where there had been any concerns about their care, or a change in their needs, external healthcare support had been requested (when appropriate to do so). People’s care plans and risk assessments had also been regularly reviewed and where necessary, amended accordingly. People were supported to eat and drink in sufficient amounts.

Our observations confirmed people experienced care and support that protected their privacy, dignity and where possible, promoted their independence. Staff displayed caring and compassionate attitudes towards people, and people’s relatives spoke highly of the staff team. Individualised care records were available for staff to follow and they were very aware of people’s diverse needs and how to deliver effective, personalised care. People enjoyed regular activities within their daily lives and they were supported to enter the community safely.

Systems were in place to monitor the service provided and care delivered. Where issues were identified there was evidence to show that these had been addressed and changes made, for example, to care delivery, and care plans or risk assessments as a result. We received positive feedback about the provider from people’s relatives and staff, primarily about his approachability and values related to the provision of care within the service.

The provider had not notified us of all of the relevant matters that they are required to, in line with Regulation 18 of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. However, since our inspection the provider has sent in all of these notifications retrospectively and he has given us his assurances that all future matters and incidents that the service need to notify the Commission of, will be forwarded promptly.

 

 

Latest Additions: