CQC Inspections and Reports in West Berkshire

LATEST REPORTS

Please see latest reports from inspections carried out by the CQC in the West Berkshire area:-

20th June – 1-2 Prior’s Court Cottages Care Home – Good

“1-2 Prior’s Court Cottages 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. The service is provided in one of three converted and extended two-storey cottages. It provides care for up to six young adults between 19 and 25 with needs on the autistic spectrum who may require support to manage their behaviour. The service provides supported transitions for people between children’s and adults’ services. At the time of this inspection five people were receiving support within the service.
At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. (Registering the Right Support CQC policy). These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.
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. People were treated with respect and their dignity was maximised in the way staff provided support.
People were kept as safe as possible because risks to people and staff were identified, assessed and appropriate steps taken to minimise them. Health and safety checks and servicing were carried out as required. The service had a robust recruitment system to ensure, as much as possible, that staff had the right approach and skills. People were supported by staff who were well trained and supported and who were additionally supported to develop their knowledge and skills. Staff understood the impact of their autism on each person and responded to their individual needs consistently. Where people needed support to manage their behaviours, this was delivered in planned, consistent ways which were kept under regular review. Staff had all been trained in a nationally recognised behaviour support technique.
Healthcare was very good and medical conditions were managed very well using appropriate technology where necessary to keep people safe. People’s transitions in and out of the service were extremely well planned and supported to try to give them the best chance of success.
People’s care was delivered according to detailed individual care plans which were subject to regular review. The views of relevant others were sought when reviewing people’s care needs. People had wide ranging opportunities for involvement in activities, holidays and supported employment. They continued to develop their skills through attending the on-site learning centre.
Each person’s communication preferences were recorded, understood and supported by the staff working with them. Communication aids were used effectively to enable people to be as involved in making decisions and choices as possible. People’s individual and diverse needs were met.
The provider and management exercised thorough governance over the service through a range of effective monitoring and audit systems.”
Read more about this inspection and report by clicking HERE

7th June 2018 – Peppard House Residential homes – Outstanding

“This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 03 May 2018.
Peppard House is a care home (without nursing) which is registered to provide a service for up to seven people with learning disabilities. People had other associated difficulties such as behavioural issues and being on the autistic spectrum.
People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Peppard House accommodates people in a large domestic sized building. The service was run in line with the values that underpin the “registering the right support’’ and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism can lead as ordinary a life as any citizen.
At the last inspection, on 23 February 2016, the service was rated as good in all domains. This meant that the service was rated as overall good. At this inspection we found the service had improved to outstanding in two domains and therefore had improved to an overall rating of outstanding.
Why the service is rated outstanding.
The service was exceptionally responsive and strove to meet people’s aspirations and lifestyle choices. It was flexible and readily adapted to meet people’s changing, diverse and complex needs. It was extraordinarily person centred and people were seen and responded to as individuals. Activity programmes were creative and designed to meet people’s individual preferences and choices. Care planning was highly individualised and regularly reviewed which ensured people’s current needs were met and their equality and diversity was respected.”

To read more about this inspection visit the CQC website by clicking HERE

6th June 2018 – Holly Grange Residential Home – Good

“This inspection took place and was announced on the first day. At the last inspection in August 2016, the service was rated ‘Requires Improvement’ overall. Significant improvements had been made since the inspection prior to that in March 2016 but some additional improvements were still needed and we needed to see that the positive changes that had been made were sustained.
At this comprehensive inspection we found that the registered manager had acted to address the previous issues and where previous improvements had been made, these had been sustained.
Holly Grange Residential Home 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.
The service accommodates up to 19 people in one adapted and extended building. At the time of inspection there were 13 people receiving care in the service. A registered manager was in place.
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.
People were kept as safe as possible in the service. Health and safety and service checks were carried out and action had been taken to address any shortfalls found. Potential risks to people were assessed and action taken to minimise them. People themselves felt safe there. Specialist equipment was available to assist people with limited mobility.
People’s needs were assessed and they were involved in planning their care as much as they were able and wished to be, together with their representatives, where appropriate. People’s wishes with regard to end of life were explored with them and recorded.
People’s rights and freedom were maintained and staff supported their dignity and privacy. People’s individual and diverse needs were identified and provided for. Information was provided in accessible formats where necessary. People’s views about the service were sought via annual surveys and periodic resident’s meetings. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.”

To read more about this inspection, visit the CQC website by clicking HERE

25th May 2018 – Audley Care Inglewood domiciliary care agency – Good

“This was an announced inspection which took place on 06 April 2018.

Audley Care – Inglewood is a domiciliary care agency. It provides care to people living in their own homes in a purpose built village setting and in the community. Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity. Approximately 97 people receive a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. The agency provides a service to older adults.

At the last inspection, on 14 June 2016, the service was rated as good in all domains and therefore overall good. At this inspection we found the service was still rated as overall good but the responsive domain had improved to outstanding.

The service did not have a registered manager running the service. However, the current manager had applied to be registered by the CQC and the application was being processed. 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.

People, staff and visitors remained as safe as possible whilst in the office or being provided by a service. Staff had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. Staff knew what action to take if they identified any safety concerns during the course of their work. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and action continued to be taken to reduce them, as far as possible.

Medicine was administered as safely as possible. Care staff followed the medication procedure, completed medicine care plans and recorded medicine administration. People benefitted from being provided with adequate and skilled staff. The service did not accept a package of care unless they were able to provide staffing to meet the individual’s needs safely. The service followed a recruitment process which ensured staff were recruited safely.

Staff continued to be well trained and well supported to make sure they could meet people’s varied needs. Care staff met people’s needs effectively and as described in plans of care. The service worked closely with health and other professionals to ensure they were able to meet people’s needs, in the best way possible.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and care staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People continued to be supported by a committed and enthusiastic staff team who delivered care with kindness, respect and understanding. They built caring relationships with people and were able to meet their needs sensitively. The service and care staff were aware of people’s equality and diversity needs and endeavoured to meet them.

The service was exceptionally person centred, flexible and responsive to people’s individual’s needs. It adapted and changed care packages in response to people’s choices and specific needs. People’s needs were regularly reviewed to ensure the care provided was up-to-date. Care plans included information to ensure people’s communication needs were understood.

The manager and the management team ensured the service was very well-led. The manager, management team and office staff were described by staff as exceptionally supportive, open and approachable. The manager and the staff team were committed to ensuring there was no discrimination relating to staff or people in the service. The quality of care the service provided was continually assessed, reviewed and improved.”

For further details about this inspection, please click HERE

17th May 2018 Berkshire Health Limited Doctors/GP service

“We carried out an announced comprehensive inspection at Berkshire Health limited on 18 October 2017. The full comprehensive report on the October 2017 inspection can be found by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Berkshire Health Limited on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Berkshire Health Limited operates under the name of The Forbury Clinic.

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 service was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

This inspection was an announced focused inspection carried out on 1 May 2018 to confirm that the practice had carried out their plan to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches in regulations that we identified in our previous inspection on 18 October 2017. This report covers our findings in relation to those requirements and also additional improvements made since our last inspection.

CQC inspected the service on 17 October 2017 and asked the provider to make improvements regarding the lack of a system for monitoring medicine and safety alerts and a lack of risk assessments relating to the accessability of the emergency medicines and equipment. We checked these areas as part of this focus inspection and found these had been resolved.

The service has a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who is 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.

Our key findings were:

  • Arrangements for actioning medicine and safety alerts kept patients safe.

  • The contents and accessibility of the emergency medicines and equipment had been assessed and actions undertaken to improve this.”

Click HERE to visit the CQC website and see further details.

11th May 2018 – Independence With Dignity Support Homecare agency – Good

“This inspection took place on the 6 March 2018 and was announced.

Independence with Dignity Support Services Ltd is a domiciliary care agency. It provides care to people living in their own homes. Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity. (Approximately 4 of 24 people receive a regulated activity.) The Care Quality Commission only inspects the service being received by people provided with personal care, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. The agency provides a service to people who may have a learning disability, physical disability, sensory impairment and/or mental health issues

At the last inspection, on 14 and 18 January 2016, the service was rated as good in all domains and therefore overall good. At this inspection we found the service was still rated as overall good.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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.

People told us that they felt safe with staff and would be confident to raise any concerns they had. The provider’s recruitment procedures were robust and medicines were managed safely. There were sufficient staff to provide safe and effective care at the times agreed by the people who were using the service.”

 

Visit THIS WEBPAGE to read more information.

3rd May 2018 – Eastfield House Surgery – Good

“At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen. When incidents did happen, the practice learned from them and improved their processes.
  • The practice routinely reviewed the effectiveness and appropriateness of the care it provided. It ensured that care and treatment was delivered according to evidence- based guidelines.
  • Staff involved and treated patients with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use and reported that they were able to access care when they needed it.
  • There was a strong focus on continuous learning and improvement at all levels of the organisation. For example, clinical staff received enhanced training to deal with a range of life threatening conditions that patients might encounter whilst at the practice.
  • The practice ran a personalised list system to deliver continuity of care for patients.
  • There was a focus on prevention of health problems arising. This included scanning for liver problems, pre diabetes assessments and dementia screening.
  • There were effective systems in place to monitor usage of prescribed medicines. Data showed that 99% of patients taking four or more repeat medicines had received a review of their medicines in the last year.The practice employed practice matrons to support patients with complex needs and those whose condition made it difficult to attend the practice for appointments. For example, patients who had mental health problems and did not wish to attend the practice could be seen at their own home.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Monitor the systems changes made on the day of inspection to evaluate their effectiveness and sustainability.

  • Review the implementation of annual health checks for patients diagnosed with a learning disability.”

Click HERE to read further information.

20th April 2018 – West Berkshire Council Home Care Service – Good

“West Berkshire Home Care Service is a domiciliary care agency providing care and support to people who live in the community. It mainly offers a short term service to assist older people with their rehabilitation after hospital admission or illness. Since November 2017, the provider also offers a long term care service. It provides a service to older adults, younger disabled adults, and people living with dementia, physical disability and sensory impairments.

At our last inspection we rated the service Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of Good. There was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

This inspection took place on 19 February 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider prior notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure someone would be in the office.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with the regulated activity ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Not everyone using the service receives the regulated activity. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of our inspection the service was providing personal care to 49 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. 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 supported us with the inspection.

People felt safe while supported by the staff. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns. Staff had the knowledge and confidence to identify safeguarding concerns and acted on these to keep people safe.”

Visit this webpage to read more details.

24th March 2018 – Acorn House – Good

“Why the service is rated good.

The service was exceptionally person centred and responded creatively to people’s diverse, individualised needs and aspirations. Activity programmes were designed to meet people’s individual preferences and choices. Care planning was highly individualised and regularly reviewed which ensured people’s current needs were met and their equality and diversity was respected.
People continued to be protected from all forms of abuse. Staff were trained in safeguarding people and knew what action to take if they identified any concerns. The service identified general health and safety and individual risks. Action was taken to reduce all risks, as much as possible. All aspects of safety were considered and actions were taken to assist people to remain as safe as possible.
People continued to be supported by adequate staffing ratios. Staff were able to meet people’s specific needs, including any relating to diversity, safely. Recruitment systems made sure, that as far as possible, staff recruited were safe and suitable to work with people. People were supported to take their medicines, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.”
Click HERE for more details

8th March – Little Heath Court – Good

Why the service is rated good.
The service remained safe. People’s safety was contributed to by staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures. Staff understood how to protect people and who to alert if they had any concerns. General risks and risks related to the needs of individual people were identified and appropriate action was taken to reduce them.
There were enough staff on duty at all times to meet people’s diverse, individual needs safely. The service had a stable staff team. When new staff were recruited they had systems in place to ensure, that as far as possible, they were safe and suitable to work with people. People were given their medicines safely, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.
The service remained effective. Staff were well-trained and able to meet people’s health and well-being needs. They were able to respond effectively to people’s current and changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s needs.
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.
The service continued to be caring. The dedicated, attentive and knowledgeable staff team provided care with kindness and respect. Individualised care planning ensured people’s equality and diversity was respected. People were provided with a wide variety of activities, according to their needs, abilities, health and preferences.
Click HERE for more details.

5th Feb 2018 – Thornford Park – Good

“We rated Thornford Park as good because:

  • Risk assessments and risk management plans were detailed, thorough and up to date and patients had been involved in the development of the plans. The assessment of patients’ needs and the planning of their care was thorough, individualised and had a focus on recovery. Physical healthcare assessments and associated plans of care were thorough and consistently delivered to a high standard. Care plans had either a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance reference to an identified intervention or another nationally recognised intervention such as from the Quality Network for Forensic Mental Health led by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
  • There were enough suitably qualified and trained staff to provide care to a safe standard. We consistently saw respectful, patient, responsive and kind interactions between staff and patients. Staff displayed a high level of understanding of the individual needs of patients. There were innovative practices used consistently across the service to engage and involve patients in the care and treatment they received, for example, the recovery star. There was a confident and thorough understanding of relational security among all of the staff. Relational security is how staff use their knowledge and understanding of their patients to ensure the ward environment is kept calm and any conflict is kept to a minimum.
  • Bed management processes were effective and there was a clear care pathway through the service from medium secure wards to the least restrictive environments, such as the shared flats. The service model optimised patients’ recovery, comfort and dignity. The needs of patients were considered at all times.
  • The service had clear guidance in place to report incidents and we saw evidence that staff learnt from when things had gone wrong. The service was responsive to listening to concerns or ideas made by patients and their relatives to improve services. We saw that when staff where able to, these ideas were taken on board and implemented.
  • Staff monitored patients’ physical healthcare and they could access specialist physical health services when needed. A GP provided regular physical health monitoring. Patients attended a well-man clinic.
  • We observed many positive engagement and interaction between staff and patients. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of individual patient’s needs.

However:

  • Staff were not always available to facilitate section 17 leave on the forensic wards and leave was often cancelled.
  • The number of staff having access to regular supervision was below the provider’s target of 90%.
  • Not all patients were always reminded of their rights when their circumstances changed, such as on renewal of detention.
  • The seclusion room did not have a two-way intercom to ease communication between staff and patients.  Gym equipment was worn . All of these facility issues had been identified for refurbishment and upgrade in 2018
  • The recording of seclusion was documented differently across the wards. Staff made the required checks however, some was recorded electronically and some in paper form.”

 

To read more information about this inspection and report, please click HERE

24th Jan 2018 Dimensions 43 Clayhill Road – Good

“Dimensions 43, Clayhill Road is a residential care home for up to six people with a learning disability. Some people may also have needs within the autistic spectrum. The service has two floors and people’s bedrooms were on both the ground and first floors.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good, with Requires improvement (no breach) in Safe.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good and improvements had been made so that the service was also rated Good in Safe.

The service met all of the fundamental standards. People felt safe, well cared for and that they were treated with respect and dignity. We could see from people’s body language and facial expressions that interactions with staff were relaxed, friendly and respectful. Long term positive relationships with staff had also contributed to a reduction in instances of challenging behaviour. Staff were caring and treated people with patience and kindness, involving them in their care as much as possible, enabling and encouraging choice.”

To read more information about this inspection please click HERE

18th January 2018 – St. Anne’s Opportunity Centre Limited – Kestrels – Good

“This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 18 December 2017.
Kestrels is a residential care home which is registered to provide a service for up to five people with learning disabilities. People had other associated difficulties such as behaviours that may cause distress to themselves and/or others and some people were on the autistic spectrum.
At the last inspection, on 16 December 2015, the service was rated as good in all domains. This meant that the service was rated as overall good. At this inspection we found the service remained good in four domains and outstanding in the responsive domain. This meant the service remained overall good.”
For more information about this report please click: HERE

11th Jan – Royal Berkshire Hospital – Outstanding

The CQC inspected Royal Berkshire Hospital from the 2nd October to the 7th December, on 11th January they published a report with their findings. 

 

Royal Berkshire Hospital was given the overall rating of “Outstanding”

For individual categories it was awarded “Good” when it came to being “safe”, “effective” and “well-led”.  It was awarded “outstanding” when it came to being “caring” and “responsive”

For specific services it achieved:

  • “Outstanding” for “Medical care”
  • “Good” for “Urgent and Emergency Services”, “Surgery”, “Intensive/Critical Care”, “Services for Children and Young People” and “End of Life Care”
  • “Requires improvement” for “Maternity and Gynaecology”

You can take a look at the report and digest the full information by clicking HERE

15th December – Dr M L Swami & Partners – Good

A comprehensive inspection at Dr M L Swami and Partners in Reading, Berkshire was carried out on 21 November 2017. CQC carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of their regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether Dr M L Swami and Partners were meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

“At this inspection we found:

  • The practice had clear systems to manage risk so that safety incidents were less likely to happen and any notable events either positive or negative were learned from.
  • The practice had defined and embedded systems, processes and practices to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • However, we found these systems had not identified risks related to the ongoing monitoring of patients on medicines where care was shared with other health services. There were also risks identified related to actions following test results or other patient related information received into the practice.
  • Staff had received training appropriate to their roles and the population the practice served. Any further training needs had been identified and planned.
  • Our findings showed that systems were in place to ensure that all clinicians were up to date with both National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines and other locally agreed guidelines.
  • Clinical outcomes in national data submissions showed high performance for managing patients with long term conditions.
  • We received positive feedback from patients and external stakeholders which access GP services from the practice.
  • Patients found the appointment system easy to use.
  • The practice learned lessons from individual concerns and complaints and also from analysis of trends. For example, telephone access had been a historic concern within the practice. As a result, the practice reviewed the telephone system and increased staff who answered calls.
  • The practice had clear and visible clinical and managerial leadership and supporting governance arrangements.

The areas where the provider must make improvements are:

  • Ensure risks to patients are identified, assessed and mitigated to protect patients’ health and welfare.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Review the potential requirements of patients with limited mobility and access to services to patients who may need additional support, with regard to the legal requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) and Equality Act (2010).

  • Undertake a full review of the requirements of the accessible information standard.”

To read the full report about this inspection, click HERE

14th December – Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre – Good

“The Care Quality Commission has published a report on the provision of safe care to patients at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre (the Oxford Centre for Enablement) which is part of Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. The centre provides specialist neurological rehabilitation for up to 26 patients across Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Hampshire, Isle of Wight and Dorset.  There were 23 patients receiving care at the time of the inspection.
Inspectors carried out an unannounced, focused inspection in August in response to notification of an incident in July where avoidable harm had occurred to a patient and to ensure care was being provided in a safe way to current patients.
As this was a focused inspection relating to safe care in one area, no rating has been issued.  
The inspection identified a number of areas where improvements must be made.  These include:
  • Monitor and review staffing levels on the inpatients ward to ensure they are at the required level with the correct skill match to meet the assessed needs of the patients.
  • Review the standard of record keeping ensuring each patient has a contemporaneous record of care, with a care plan which reflects their needs, taking into account the assessment of risk associated with delivering the required level of care.
  • Ensure care plans are reviewed on a regular basis and when there is a change to the patients’ needs to ensure they remain current and relevant to the needs of the individual patient.
  • Ensure planned work to improve the safety of the unit is completed in a timely way.
  • Review the security control measures in place for all gates that lead from the inpatient ward garden area to help ensure it is a safe environment for patients.
Following the inspection, CQC inspectors understand action has been taken to reduce the number of beds at the centre to 18 to help ensure staff would be able to provide safe care to patients.  In addition, the inspectors have been informed that improvement work has been carried out to ensure gates and doors are made appropriately secure.
 
We will continue to monitor the service and return in due course to check the progress made in the areas for improvement that have been identified.”
 
A full report of the inspection can be found at: http://www.cqc.org.uk/location/RTH03

11 December 2017 – Bluebell Ward – Good

The Care Quality Commission has, as of December 11th 2017, published a report relating to Acute wards for adults of working age and psychiatric intensive care units based in the Bluebell Ward at Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust

 

Previously CQC carried out a comprehensive inspection of the acute wards for adults of working age and the psychiatric intensive care unit on 13 December 2016. The acute wards for adults of  working age and psychiatric intensive care units were rated as requires improvement for safe, good for effective, good for caring, good for responsive and good for well-led. Overall the service was rated as good.

 

A full report has been published here

 

14 July 2017 Rowan Cottage – Outstanding

“Rowan Cottage is a residential care home providing care and accommodation for up to nine people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. It is a single storey building with an annexe and an enclosed garden. At the time of the inspection there were nine people living at the service, eight in the main house and one in the self-contained annexe.

The service is required to have a registered manager. There was a registered manager in post who had been registered to manage the service since July 2016. 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.

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection which took place on 10 May 2017. We were assisted by the registered manager during the inspection.

People were safe at Rowan Cottage. They were encouraged and supported to learn about how to keep themselves safe and raise any concerns or worries they may have. People were protected from harm and abuse by staff who had been trained and had knowledge of how to safeguard people. Staff understood their responsibilities to report and act on issues if they arose. Risks were assessed, managed and reviewed to keep people safe. There were sufficient staff who had been recruited using effective procedures to ensure their suitability. Medicines were managed and administered safely. Routine health and safety checks were completed in accordance with legislation and guidance. Infection control procedures were followed.

Staff were praised by people for providing effective support. Staff were trained in areas relevant to their job role and their skills assessed and monitored. They were supported by the management team to develop and gain appropriate qualifications. Staff felt supported and received regular supervision and appraisal of their work. The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the associated Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Consent to care and support was sought in line with legislation and guidance. When appropriate mental capacity assessments had been completed and where people had been assessed as not having mental capacity to make a decision, a best interests meeting had taken place. 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.”

 

To read further information about this inspection, please click HERE

20th June St. Anne’s Opportunity Centre Limited

“Chaffinches is a care home without nursing that provides a service to up to three people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service.
 
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and had continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety.
 
Why the service remained Good:
Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and protect them from abuse. Personal and environmental risks to the safety of people, staff and visitors had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise those risks. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable. There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were stored and handled correctly”
To read the full report click HERE

26th June P & M Homecare Limited

“This was an announced inspection which took place on 23 and 24 May 2017. Bluebird Care (Newbury) is a domiciliary care service which is registered to provide personal care to people living in their own homes. The service re-registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in June 2016 after a change of address. The service currently provides personal care to 51 people who live in the Newbury and West Berkshire area. Most people offered a service are self-funding (pay for their own care).

There is a registered manager running the 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.
 
People were kept as safe as possible by staff who had been appropriately trained and knew how to protect people in their care. Care staff were recruited via robust recruitment processes to ensure they were suitable to provide safe care to people. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and action was taken to reduce them. People were supported to take their medicines safely, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.”
To read the full report then click HERE

26th June Dimensions (UK) Limited

“Dimensions Baily Thomas House Haysoms Drive is a respite service for up to six people at a time with a learning disability. People may have associated physical or behavioural difficulties. The service supports a total of 50 people through planned and agreed respite stays.

Rating at last inspection: At the last inspection in October 2014, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
 
Why the service is rated Good?
 
The service met relevant fundamental standards. People felt safe and well cared for by staff. Where risks were identified, appropriate steps had been taken to minimise these. Medicines were managed so as to reduce the risk of errors, given the frequency of their transfer between people’s homes and the service. Potential new staff were subject to a robust recruitment process. Once appointed, staff received a thorough induction and training to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills and were provided with ongoing support and development opportunities.”
To read the full report click HERE

1st June Thatcham court care home

“This inspection took place on 27 and 28 April 2017. The inspection was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second. The previous comprehensive inspection of the service was in May 2016. At that inspection we found the service was in breach of one regulation of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

A requirement notice was issued with respect to the breach of Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment). The registered provider sent us an action plan in June 2016 outlining the improvements they were going to make in order to meet the requirements of the regulation.
The inspection of 27 and 28 April 2017 was a comprehensive inspection to follow up and ensure the requirement notice for Regulation 12 (Safe care and treatment) had been met and to make a judgement about the overall compliance of the service. We found the service had made the necessary improvements to meet the requirements of the regulations.
Thatcham Court Care Home provides accommodation for up to 60 people who may be living with dementia and need personal and nursing care. The service was purpose built as a care home and provides accommodation over three floors. There is a well maintained garden which provides safe outdoor space for people to enjoy.”
To read the full report click HERE.

15th June – Birchwood Road

“This inspection took place on 8 and 9 May 2017. This was a focused responsive inspection, to concerns that had been raised through a recent safeguarding referral to the local authority.
The home had a registered manager who had been in post since July 2016. 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.
Birchwood – Newbury is a care home with nursing that is registered to provide support to a total of 60 people across three floors. At the time of the inspection, we were advised that the ground floor had been closed, to allow staff to be deployed to the other two floors. A total of 46 people were being provided support and care at the service.
Staff knew how to keep people safe by reporting concerns immediately. Systems and processes were in place to recruit staff who were suitable to work in the service and to protect people against the risk of abuse. However, the service required using agency staff as there were a number of vacancies within the service. This ensured sufficient staff were deployed to keep people safe.”

To read the full report click HERE

31 May 2017- Walnut Close Care Home rated ‘GOOD’ in latest CQC report

31 May 2017

Walnut Close provides support and personal care to up to 35 people in total, with needs arising from old age. Up to eleven people living with dementia are supported in a separate specialist unit. The service does not provide nursing care.

Rating at last inspection.

At the last inspection in November 2014, the service was rated Good.

Rating at this inspection.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The service had continued to develop and improve, particularly in terms of the developments in the dementia unit, which had been prioritised recently. The improvements made and planned there had significantly enhanced the experience of those living with dementia, and a range of further developments were in process.

People felt safe and well cared for and said staff were kind and attentive to their needs. Feedback from the local authority was positive and the service had worked with them to improve some records and systems. A local authority representative commented, “The staff are very person centred and from my experience during my visits are very supportive and kind to the residents.” Regarding the management of the service they said, “Management are very proactive and transparent.”

People were kept as safe as possible by the systems, policies, procedures and the training provided to staff. Health and safety and other risks were well managed.

People’s safety and wellbeing were enhanced by the changes in staffing, including additional staff at key times, piloting qualified shift leaders on night shifts and increasing management cover at weekends. The appointment of ‘champions’ in key areas also helped to drive further developments in the service.

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.

Induction improvements and an effective ongoing training programme helped ensure staff had the up to date knowledge and skills to deliver person centred care. The registered manager had taken steps to improve the frequency of ongoing staff support through supervision and had ensured staff development was encouraged through annual appraisals.

People continued to receive effective healthcare support and the service worked well with external healthcare providers. Where issues had been identified with the quality of food provided, the registered manager had taken steps to address these with the external caterers and had achieved improvements.

Staff delivered support calmly and in a timely way. They respected people’s dignity, individuality and cultural or personal needs. There was a positive rapport between people and staff. The service continued to respond promptly to people’s changing needs, feedback and complaints. Ongoing improvements had been made in the variety and individualisation of activities.

The service was well led by a competent registered manager who sought to involve people and staff in plans for future developments. The view of people, staff and external professionals had been sought and identified issues acted upon.

Read full report here.

What are your experiences receiving acute hospital care living in West Berkshire? Let us know here, on facebook, twitter, email, or call us on 01635886210.

12 May 2017- Theale Medical Centre ‘requires improvement’ in latest CQC inspection

12 May 2017

Chief Inspector of General Practice

We carried out a short notice announced comprehensive inspection at Theale Medical Centre on 15 and 24 March 2017. We rated the practice as good for providing Effective, Caring and Responsive services and requires improvement for Safe and Well Led. Overall the practice is rated as requires improvement.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • Risks to patients were assessed and well managed, with the exception of those relating to recruitment checks and dispensary processes.
  • There was a leadership structure but not all staff felt supported by management. The practice sought feedback from patients, which it acted on.
  • Governance arrangements in respect to documentation and record keeping for organisational management were not always effective.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence-based guidance. Most staff had been trained to provide them with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment. However, mental capacity act training was not offered to staff.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns. However, governance arrangements had not included logging all verbal complaints and staff told us many of these had been dealt with ineffectively or not responded to in a timely way.
  • Feedback from patients reported that access to a named GP and continuity of care was not always available quickly, although urgent appointments were usually available the same day.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed most patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.

The areas where the provider must make improvement are:

  • The provider must ensure governance processes and systems are consistently applied in a timely manner to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided and in the management of risk. This includes ensuring that:
  • All staff are aware of policies and procedures and are effectively embedded in practice. For example, not all staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy and how to access it.
  • Governance arrangements include all necessary employment checks; training needs are met for all staff; dispensary governance processes identify risks and keep patients safe.
  • The complaints management processes include documenting and responding to all verbal complaints in a timely way. Learning and trends from complaints must be shared with all staff.

The areas where the provider should make improvements are:

  • Ensure all actions from the infection control audit have been documented.
  • Continue to review the learning disability register and offer health checks to improve outcomes for this patient group.

Read the full report here.

 

What are your experiences receiving acute hospital care living in West Berkshire? Let us know here, on facebook, twitter, email, or call us on 01635886210.

4 May 2017 GOOD RATING TO SOUTHMEAD SURGERY BY CQC

4 May 2017

Southmead Surgery provides GP services to 6600 patients in a suburban area of Slough. It is based in an area of mixed ethnicity and this is reflected in its patient list. The locality has a relatively low level of deprivation, with a higher working age population compared to the national average.

The practice has three GP partners and three salaried GPs, four female and two male. It currently has one practice nurse and one healthcare assistant. There are 11 members of administration, reception and support staff, including a practice manager. Southmead Surgery is a training practice and support qualified doctors undertaking their GP training.

Our key findings across all the areas we inspected were as follows:

  • We found evidence that improvements had been made. The practice had implemented new systems and processes to evidence these improvements. Our improved rating of good reflects the positive development of leadership and management systems to deliver significant progress in improving services across the board for all patient groups.
  • There was an open and transparent approach to safety and a system in place for reporting and recording significant events.
  • The practice had clearly defined and embedded systems to minimise risks to patient safety.
  • Staff were aware of current evidence based guidance. Staff had been trained with the skills and knowledge to deliver effective care and treatment.
  • Results from the national GP patient survey showed patients were treated with compassion, dignity and respect and were involved in their care and decisions about their treatment.
  • Information about services and how to complain was available. Improvements were made to the quality of care as a result of complaints and concerns.
  • Patients we spoke with said they found it easy to make an appointment with a named GP and there was continuity of care, with urgent appointments available the same day.
  • The practice had good facilities and was well equipped to treat patients and meet their needs.
  • There was a clear leadership structure and staff felt supported by management. The practice proactively sought feedback from staff and patients, which it acted on.
  • The provider was aware of the requirements of the duty of candour. Examples we reviewed showed the practice complied with these requirements.
  • Southmead Surgery has made significant improvements following the last inspection. The practice should continue to sustain these and ensure further continuous improvements are identified through their governance processes.

In addition to pre-bookable appointments that could be booked up to four weeks in advance, urgent appointments were also available for people that needed them.

Southmead Surgery is registered to provide services from the following location:

Blackpond Lane, Farnham Common, Slough, Berkshire, SL2 3ER.

Read the full report here. What are your experiences receiving acute hospital care living in West Berkshire? Let us know here, on facebook, twitter, email, or call us on 01635886210.

CQC report of The John Redcliff Hospital

9 May 2017

CQC has carried out an inspection of  The John Radcliffe Hospital on 11 and 12 October 2016: Here is the summary of the report.

The John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford is the largest hospital in the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust, with 832 beds, and serves a population of around 655,000 people. It provides acute medical and surgical services, trauma, and intensive care and offers specialist and general clinical services to the people of Oxfordshire. The John Radcliffe Hospital site includes the Children’s Hospital, Oxford Eye Hospital, Oxford Heart Centre, Women’s Centre, Neurosciences Centre, Medical Emergency Unit, Surgical Emergency Unit, and West Wing. It is Oxfordshire’s main accident and emergency (ED) site. The trust provides 90 specialist services and is the lead hospital in regional networks for trauma; vascular surgery; neonatal intensive care; primary coronary intervention and stroke.

Report overview:

Safety: Requires improvement

effectiveness: Good

Caring: Good

Responsiveness: Requires improvement

Well-led: Good

Read Full report here

What are your experiences receiving acute hospital care living in West Berkshire? Let us know here, on facebook, twitter, email, or call us on 01635886210.

 

 

28 March 2017- Hazel View residential care home

Reported: 20 April 2017

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 28 March 2017.

Hazel View is a residential care home which is registered to provide a service for up to five people with learning disabilities. Some people had other associated difficulties including needing support with behaviours which could be distressing and/or harmful. There were five people living there on the day of the visit. The service offers accommodation in a domestic sized house, over two floors. The home is one of eight houses in a small community provided by Purley Park Trust Limited.

At the last inspection the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good:

There is a registered manager running the 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.

The service was safe, improvements had been made since the last inspection. Staff who had been trained in safeguarding vulnerable adults and health and safety policies and procedures kept people as safe as possible. Staff understood how to protect people and followed the relevant procedures. General risks and risks to individuals were identified and action was taken to reduce them.

People’s needs were met and they were supported safely by adequate numbers of staff. The service made sure, that as far as possible, staff were recruited safely and were suitable to work with the people who live in the home. People were given their medicines appropriately, at the right times and in the right amounts by trained and competent staff.

The service remained effective. People’s health and well-being needs were met by staff who were well trained and responded effectively to people’s current and changing needs. The service sought advice from and worked with health and other professionals to ensure they met people’s health and well-being needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

The service continued to be caring and responsive. The staff team were committed and provided care with kindness and respect. Care staff were attentive, responsive and knowledgeable about the needs of individuals. Individualised care planning ensured people’s equality and diversity was respected. People were provided with activities, according to their needs, abilities and preferences.

The registered manager was highly thought of by people who use the service and the staff Team. She was described as approachable and supportive. The quality of care the service provided was assessed, reviewed and improved, as necessary.

Click here to read full report.

March 2017 – Alice Bye Court

March 2017 – Alice Bye Court

This inspection took place on 13 February 2017 and was announced.

Allied Healthcare Alice Bye Court provides domiciliary care visits and emergency alarm response in an extra-care housing scheme operated by a housing association. A staff team are based on-site 24 hours a day. The service is able to offer support to 52 flats, but currently supports 35 people in 35 flats.

The service is required to 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There is a registered manager running the service.

People and staff were kept as safe as possible form any form of abuse or harm. People were protected by staff who had received the appropriate training and knew how to recognise and deal with any form of abuse or risk of harm. Staff had been recruited as safely as possible and were consequently judged to be suitable to provide people with safe care. People were supported, by trained staff, to take their medicines safely, if necessary. Individual and generic risks were identified and managed to ensure people and staff were as safe as possible when being provided with or providing care.

People’s rights were protected by staff who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005). The Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. 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.

People were provided with person centred care. Individual’s specific needs were met by a well-trained staff team. People were supported to maintain and regain as much independence as possible. People’s diversity was recognised and they were treated with respect and dignity at all times.

The service was effectively managed by team who were described as approachable, open and supportive. The quality of care offered by the service was monitored and assessed and actions were taken to make necessary improvements.

March 2017 – Allied Health Care

March 2017 –  Allied Health Care

This was the first inspection of this service which took place on 20 February 2017 and was announced.
Allied Healthcare Newbury is a domiciliary care agency which offers support to people in their own homes. The service supports approximately 84 people with diverse needs who live in the community. Services offered include a wide variety of support packages, including clinical care packages commissioned by the Care Commissioning Group and Continuing Healthcare.

The service is required to 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. There is a registered manager running the service.

The safety of people, staff and others safety was taken seriously. They were kept as safe as possible by staff who were trained in and followed health and safety and safeguarding procedures. They knew how to recognise and deal with abuse or risk of harm. Significant risks were identified and managed to reduce them, as much as possible. The service operated a robust recruitment procedure which checked that staff were safe and suitable to provide people with care. If people needed support to take their medicine, the service made sure care staff did this safely.

People’s right to make decisions and choices for themselves was upheld by staff. Care staff understood how important it was to people to give their consent and direct their own life. People’s capacity to make decisions was recorded, if appropriate and necessary. Relevant paperwork was, included in care plans. People’s rights were protected by staff who understood the Mental Capacity Act (2005). This legislation provides a legal framework that sets out how to act to support people who do not have capacity to make a specific decision. 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.

People were treated with respect and care and staff understood how important it was to maintain people’s privacy and dignity. Care staff made sure they provided people with care that met their individual needs, preferences and choices. People’s diversity was understood and people’s care reflected any special needs they may have had.

The service was well-led by a registered manager who was experienced and supported her staff team. She and her management team were described as open, approachable and very supportive by care staff. The service monitored and reviewed the quality of care they offered. Actions were taken to ensure the quality of care was maintained and improved and any necessary developments were made in a timely way.

Feb 2017 – Holly Grange Residential Home

Feb 2017 – Holly Grange Residential Home

Last updated 3 February 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.We last inspected the service on 14, 15 and 24 March 2016. At that inspection we found the service was in breach of eight regulations. The service was rated ‘inadequate’ and issued with ‘warning notices’ against some of the breaches. The service was placed in ‘Special measures’ which meant it was subject to ongoing monitoring to ensure improvements were made.As part of this process a focused inspection took place on 11 August 2016 to ensure the requirements of the three warning notices had been met. We found the registered manager had taken, or was in the process of taking, action to address all of the areas identified within the warning notices.This inspection, carried out on 8 and 9 December 2016, was a comprehensive inspection to follow up all of the previously identified breaches of regulations and make a judgement about the overall compliance of the service. This inspection was also to assess whether the service could come out of ‘special measures’. We found the service had continued to make significant progress in addressing the previous areas of concern. However, some areas still required further improvement and it was too soon to be sure that all of the initial improvements would be sustained.Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). 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 looked at the information provided in the PIR and used this to help plan the inspection. Prior to the inspection we reviewed the records we held about the service, including the details of any safeguarding events and statutory notifications sent by the provider. Statutory notifications are reports of events that the provider is required by law to inform us about.

During the inspection we spoke with three people and three relatives about their experience of the service. We observed the interactions between people and staff and saw how staff provided people’s support. We had lunch with people on the first day of the inspection. We spoke with three of the staff and the registered manager. Prior to the inspection we contacted the local authority to seek their views. They raised no new concerns about the service.

We reviewed the care plans and associated records for three people, including their risk assessments and reviews, and related this to the care we observed. We examined a sample of other records to do with the home’s operation including staff recruitment, supervision and support records, surveys and various monitoring and audit tools.