CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 35 Cranbrook Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff knew how to reduce risks and respond to safeguarding concerns. Recruitment, medicines, fire safety, cleanliness and infection control were judged safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's mental health, physical and social needs were assessed, and staff worked with health professionals. However, staff had not been receiving the regular formal supervision set out in the provider's policy.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, calm and respectful. People were offered choices and supported to express their views and make decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's preferences, communication needs, relationships and activities. Some care plans had not been formally reviewed or updated for over 12 months.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had management systems, but audits did not identify missed staff supervision or care plans needing review. This was a breach of Regulation 17, Good governance.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement and inspectors found gaps in staff supervision, care-plan reviews and quality checks.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 January 2020. One inspector met four people living at the home, spoke with four staff and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, supervision and management records.
People told inspectors they felt safe and were treated kindly. Staff knew people well, supported their medicines safely, met their dietary needs and helped them take part in activities and keep in touch with relatives and friends.
The main problems were with management checks. Some staff had not received regular supervision, and some care plans and risk assessments were not up to date. The home's audits had not identified these issues.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were Good. Well-led was Requires Improvement, meaning management and quality checks were not consistently strong enough. The report says this was a breach of Regulation 17 on good governance.
Safe medicines support
Staff who supported people with medicines were trained and competent. Inspectors found systems for ordering, storing, giving and disposing of medicines safely.
“People received support with their medicines from trained and competent staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff offering choices and speaking to people in a calm and respectful way.
“Staff were observed speaking to people in a way that was very supportive and very respectful at all times.” from the report
Staff knew people well
There was a regular staff team with little or no agency use. Staff understood people's needs, routines, histories and preferences.
“There was a regular staff team and no use of agency staff.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to go out, take part in arts and crafts, join a walking group and maintain contact with family and friends.
“People were well supported to develop and maintain relationships and to take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them.” from the report
Staff supervision was not regular
seriousStaff did not receive the formal support and supervision required by the provider's policy. Inspectors said this created a risk that care might not be safe or suitable.
“Staff had not been receiving regular supervision.” from the report
Some care plans were out of date
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments had not been reviewed or updated. This created a risk that staff might not have current guidance about how to support a person.
“some parts of a person's care plans we read had not been formally reviewed or updated for over 12 months.” from the report
Management audits missed problems
seriousThe home's quality checks did not identify the missed supervision and outdated care plans. Inspectors found this was a breach of Regulation 17.
“the registered manager's audits had not picked up that staff supervision was not taking place regularly.” from the report
- 01Have all staff now received the regular supervision required by your policy, and how do you check this?
- 02Which care plans and risk assessments were out of date, and when were they last reviewed?
- 03What changes have been made to the audit system so that missed supervision and outdated records are identified promptly?
- 04What progress has been made against the action plan requested by CQC?
- 05How are people and their relatives involved in reviewing care plans and checking that the guidance remains accurate?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors met four people, spoke with four staff and reviewed selected care, medicines, recruitment, supervision and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 February 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, July 2017
Rated Good; 35 Cranbrook Road provided safe, caring and person-centred support, with some medicine issues being addressed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 6 June 2017. The inspector spoke with three people, two support staff and the manager. They reviewed two support plans and records about staffing, training, quality checks and the running of the home.
The home supported five people with mental health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, had enough staff support and received safe support with medicines. Staff understood people's needs, promoted independence and treated people respectfully.
All five areas were rated Good. The home remained Good overall, improving from Requires Improvement for Safe at the previous inspection. The earlier problem with furniture blocking fire escape routes had been addressed.
Safe staffing and risk planning
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with flexible staffing and clear risk assessments. Staff also knew how to report safeguarding concerns.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that people's needs were met.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to prepare food, access the kitchen, use local facilities and work towards living more independently.
“People's independence was promoted and encouraged.” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans included people's life histories, preferences, mental health needs and wishes about how staff should support them.
“Care plans were person centred and reflected people's life histories and their preferences for how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found that people actively sought staff to talk and discuss issues.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Open complaints process
People were encouraged to raise concerns. Inspectors found examples where complaints had been recorded and responded to appropriately.
“There was a complaints process in place and people were actively encouraged to make their concerns known.” from the report
Recent medicine errors
needs fixingThe manager said there had been medicine administration errors in the previous few months. The home was discussing errors and near misses with staff to reduce the chance of them happening again.
“The manager told us there had been some errors over the past few months in relation to medicine administration” from the report
Medicine packaging arrangements
needs fixingA pharmacy audit had identified that people managing their own medicines were not always taking them from their original packaging. The manager planned to review this with the people affected.
“The manager was aware that ideally medicines should be taken from their original packaging to reduce the risks of errors occurring” from the report
Some areas needed updating
minorThe home was generally clean, but one bathroom needed new flooring and further decoration was being considered.
“We found that the home was generally kept clean, although some areas of the home did require updating.” from the report
- 01What medicine errors and near misses have happened since this inspection, and what has changed as a result?
- 02How do you check that people who manage their own medicines are taking them safely and as prescribed?
- 03Has the bathroom lino been replaced and have the planned improvements to the home been completed?
- 04Has the manager in day-to-day charge become registered, as planned?
- 05How are people's individual mental health plans reviewed when their needs or wishes change?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and reviewing the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 July 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 35 Cranbrook Road
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 November 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
40 live-in carers within about an hour of Bristol, City of
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,300 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She became a good friend to my mother in law, chatting with her, dancing with her, knitting with her and the list goes on”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.