Agency profile · CQC 1-1233784741

Burham Court

↗ View on cqc.org.uk⌖ See nearby

Provider

CLBD Limited

Kent · South East · Active since 05/0

GoodHome-care

Overall rating

Good

safeGood

effectiveGood

caringGood

responsiveGood

well-ledGood

Last inspection

7 years ago

25/May/2018 - 00:00

Inspected 7 years ago

Overview Inspections (3)Findings (9)Owner-management Methodology

Inspection reports (3)

Inspection report · 2020-01-29
Framework: KLOE · 7 pages · 55 KB · PDF
Good
safe: Good
This focused inspection of Burham Court confirmed that the provider had addressed a previous breach of Regulation 19 (Fit and proper persons employed) identified in February 2016, with recruitment procedures now found to be robust. The Safe domain was rated Good, with people feeling safe and well-supported by sufficient, trained staff.
Concerns (1)
- criticalStaff competency: “the provider had not ensured that robust recruitment procedures were followed to make sure only suitable staff were employed”
Strengths
- · Robust recruitment procedures now in place with quality monitoring sheets ensuring all required checks before employing new staff
- · People felt safe with staff; person stated 'I am happy with the girls who help me, yes I do feel safe with them'
- · Staff had good knowledge of safeguarding; all staff knew responsibilities in taking action to protect people and report abuse
- · Medicines appropriately administered with clear and up-to-date risk assessments
- · Sufficient staffing levels to ensure no missed calls; rotas based on people's needs and health appointments

Inspection report · 2020-01-29

Framework: KLOE · 15 pages · 80 KB · PDF

Good

safe: Requires improvementeffective: Goodcaring: Goodresponsive: Goodwell-led: Good

Burham Court was rated Good overall but received Requires Improvement for Safe due to a regulatory breach (Regulation 19) whereby not all staff had current DBS checks or the required two written references. All other key questions were rated Good, with strong safeguarding awareness, person-centred care, and effective governance systems noted.

Concerns (3)

criticalStaffing levels: “We saw on one of the five staff files viewed that there was no current enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check for that member of staff.”
criticalRecord keeping: “in three of the five files seen there was just one reference, in another file there were no references.”
minorRecord keeping: “these would be improved if staff had documented more details...staff had not recorded what the person had been able to do themselves.”

Strengths

· Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding, recognising signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns
· Detailed risk assessments developed with input from individuals, families and professionals, regularly reviewed
· Medicines were appropriately managed with clear policies, staff training and competency checks
· Staff received regular supervision, one-to-one meetings and annual appraisals supporting development
· Families reported staff were kind, caring, respectful and communicated well

Inspection report · 2018-05-25

Framework: KLOE · 19 pages · 87 KB · PDF

Good

safe: Goodeffective: Goodcaring: Goodresponsive: Goodwell-led: Good

Burham Court is a small domiciliary care agency rated Good across all five key questions, providing person-centred support to two people with learning disabilities and autism. Minor gaps were identified around moving and handling competency training, Care Certificate implementation, and the complaints policy, all of which were promptly addressed during or after the inspection.

Concerns (5)

moderateStaff competency: “Staff had not received competency based training to check that they were using this equipment safely. Some staff had been shown how to use the equipment by physiotherapists.”
minorStaff training: “The Care Certificate had not yet been embedded. However the facilitation director advised that the provider was planning to role this out to new staff very shortly.”
minorComplaints handling: “The provider's complaints policy did not include information about where to go outside of the organisation if people were unhappy with the provider's response.”
minorRecord keeping: “It was not clear if the actions had been completed as these had not been signed off.”
minorGovernance: “When we checked the provider's website we found that the rating had not been displayed, we discussed this with the management team.”

Strengths

· Risks were appropriately assessed and mitigated with detailed individual risk assessments and Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans in place.
· Medicines were managed safely with MAR charts audited monthly and checked by two staff for accuracy.
· Robust recruitment procedures including DBS checks and employer references kept people safe.
· Staff were kind, caring and had built genuine relationships with people, maintaining consistent staffing rotas.
· Detailed, person-centred care plans including behaviour support plans and communication guidance for non-verbal individuals.