CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bickerton House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills, robust recruitment checks, safe medicines practice and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's physical, emotional and social needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff were well trained, supported people to eat and drink well, and worked effectively with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff involved people and their relatives in decisions and supported independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted to people's needs, preferences and communication abilities. Activities, family contact, complaints handling and end of life care were described positively.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers promoted a strong caring culture and had systems to monitor quality and safety. Staff, relatives and professionals described the home as well managed and organised.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, although some staff said they could be too task-driven.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 14 April 2021. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff, managers and healthcare professionals. They observed care, activities, mealtimes and medicines being given, and reviewed care records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines practice, good infection control and strong links with healthcare professionals. People were treated with kindness and dignity, and their care reflected their needs and choices.
The inspection also found that some care staff felt they were sometimes too focused on tasks and did not always have enough time for meaningful conversations. Some people did not like the lunch options, although individual meals were prepared when needed. This was the first inspection since the home registered, so there was no previous rating to compare.
Safe medicines support
Staff followed safe medicines procedures and gave people time and explanations. The home also changed its procedures after identifying an increase in errors, reducing errors by 80% over the following six months.
“People were supported to manage their medicines safely by staff who followed safe practices.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed staff treating people with compassion and maintaining their dignity. Staff knew how to reassure people who were worried or confused.
“People experienced caring relationships where staff consistently treated them with kindness and compassion in their day-to-day care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were adapted to people's interests and abilities. People could take part in group activities or receive one-to-one support, helping reduce isolation.
“Arrangements for social activities were innovative, met people's individual needs, and followed best practice guidance to enable people to live as full a life as possible.” from the report
Strong healthcare links
The home worked closely with GPs, specialist nurses and other professionals. Inspectors found this helped people receive timely treatment and avoid hospital admission where possible.
“Staff worked effectively with healthcare professionals to make sure care and treatment met people's changing needs.” from the report
Open management
Managers were visible, approachable and focused on learning when things went wrong. Quality checks produced action plans and managers monitored progress.
“Quality assurance was embedded within the culture and running of the service, and staff assumed clear individual and collective responsibilities relating to this.” from the report
Time for conversation
minorAlthough staff numbers were judged sufficient to keep people safe, some care staff said they were sometimes too focused on tasks. They did not always have time to stay and have meaningful conversations with people.
“Care staff consistently told us there were enough staff to keep people safe but sometimes thought they were too task driven and did not always have time to stay and engage in meaningful conversations with people.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure staff have enough time for meaningful conversations and are not only focused on completing tasks?
- 02What were the medicine errors identified before the inspection, and how do you monitor them now?
- 03How do you find out which meals each person likes, and what happens when someone does not want the planned option?
- 04How are care plans updated when a person's physical or mental health needs change?
- 05How do you currently help residents keep in touch with family and take part in activities outside the home?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home, covering all five key questions and including a review of infection prevention and control measures. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 May 2021 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 Bickerton House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2020.
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
81 live-in carers within about an hour of Bracknell Forest
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. 74 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
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.