CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Badgers House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, comprehensive risk assessments, safe medicines systems and effective infection control arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not reviewed during this inspection. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not reviewed during this inspection. The report's overall findings describe kind, compassionate and individualised support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not reviewed during this inspection. The report's overall findings describe support based on people's choices, communication and individual needs.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was consistently managed and well-led. Inspectors found regular audits, clear responsibilities, open communication and a culture of learning and improvement.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and strong leadership, with some repairs taking time to arrange.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 May 2023. One inspector spoke with a person living at the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff checks, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable infection controls and good arrangements for managing risks. People were supported to make choices and live as independently as possible.
Inspectors found staff knew people well and provided kind, individual support. The manager and provider had regular checks and acted on shortfalls. The overall rating remained Good, but this inspection only directly reviewed Safe and Well-led. The other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
People's choices
Staff supported people to make choices and encouraged independence. People could arrange and decorate their flats in their preferred way.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Staff know people well
There was a stable staff team with the experience and knowledge to support people safely and consistently.
“There was a core staff team who knew people well and provided consistency and experience to the people living at the service.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely. People's preferences, allergies and as-required medicines were recorded and reviewed.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Strong oversight
The manager was visible and approachable. The provider used audits and other checks to monitor safety and improve the service.
“The provider had systems in place to monitor and improve standards and safety.” from the report
Repairs could take time
minorStaff said working with the landlord was a key challenge. The report says repairs sometimes needed time and coordination, so families may want to ask how urgent repairs are handled.
“Staff highlighted the difficulties of working with a landlord as one of their key challenges, and repairs took time and co-ordination.” from the report
- 01How are repairs reported and followed up, especially when they involve the landlord?
- 02How will you support my relative to make choices and communicate preferences?
- 03How do you check that medicines, including as-required medicines, are given and recorded safely?
- 04How do you adjust staffing when a person's needs change?
- 05How will you involve our family in care planning and decisions?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 June 2023 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, September 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found individual, safe and caring support, with staff retention and two medicine errors to keep under review.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 30 August 2017. One inspector reviewed care records, staff records, rotas, policies and management information. They spoke with two people, staff, a relative and health and social care professionals.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, detailed risk assessments, safe medicine systems and suitable training. People were supported to make choices, access healthcare, eat and drink what they preferred, and take part in individual activities.
Staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs. The home was judged Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. It was also rated Good at the previous inspection in December 2014.
Individual care
Care and support were planned around each person's needs, preferences, routines and interests.
“We found the service provided was designed and delivered around the individual needs of the six people.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff received training, supervision and guidance for people's complex needs, including support when people became anxious or distressed.
“People were cared for by staff who had received the training required to meet people's needs.” from the report
Respectful care
Inspectors saw calm and sensitive interactions. Staff protected people's privacy, dignity and choices.
“Whilst at the service we saw people were treated in a kind, caring and respectful way by staff.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used regular audits and reviews to identify problems and make improvements.
“Sophisticated and comprehensive systems were in place to check on the standards within the service.” from the report
Staff recruitment and retention
needs fixingStaff and relatives were concerned about increased staff turnover and whether enough skilled and experienced staff would remain available. The manager said this was under review.
“The one area staff and relatives expressed concern for the future was, the recruitment and retention of staff.” from the report
Medicine errors
needs fixingTwo medicine administration errors had occurred in the 12 months before the inspection. Medical advice was sought and steps were taken to reduce the chance of another error.
“There had been two errors in the administration of medicines in the 12 months leading up to our inspection.” from the report
- 01What has changed in staff recruitment and retention since the inspection?
- 02What caused the two medicine administration errors, and how do you check that the changes made have worked?
- 03How will you make sure there are enough staff with the right skills for my relative's needs?
- 04How would you support my relative to take part in activities and maintain their preferred routines?
- 05How are my relative's capacity, choices and consent recorded and reviewed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, and all five ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 September 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 Badgers House Care Home
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of South Gloucestershire
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 £1,280 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“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.