CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Br3akfree Respite Care
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
- Safe?
- Inspected but not rated
- Systems were in place for safeguarding, risk assessments, medicines, infection control and reporting incidents. Recruitment records were not always complete or up to date.
- Effective?
- Inspected but not rated
- Staff had training and supervision, and people's food, health and communication needs were recorded. Inspectors could not observe how the environment worked for people because nobody was using the home.
- Caring?
- Inspected but not rated
- Relatives spoke positively about staff and said people were treated with dignity and respect. Inspectors could not observe care directly.
- Responsive?
- Inspected but not rated
- Care plans contained information about people's needs, preferences and communication. Inspectors could not observe personalised care or activities because nobody was using the home.
- Well-led?
- Inspected but not rated
- The manager showed person-centred values and systems were being developed. Inspectors found gaps and inconsistencies in recruitment records and said systems needed time to become embedded.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found systems for safe, kind and person-centred care, but could not observe care because nobody was using the home.
This was the home’s first comprehensive inspection. The visit took place on 26 November 2021. One inspector reviewed records, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked the home’s systems.
Nobody was receiving respite care during the visit. This meant inspectors could not observe care or fully judge how the home worked in practice. All five areas were therefore marked “Inspected but not rated”.
Inspectors found systems for safeguarding, risk management, medicines, infection control and staff training. Relatives said people were safe, treated with dignity, and supported according to their choices.
There were gaps in recruitment records. The home also had no outside space, and one relative said a sensory area would be helpful. The report made a recommendation about keeping recruitment records up to date.
Safeguarding and risk
Safeguarding procedures, staff training and risk assessments were in place. Relatives said they felt people were safe.
“Systems were in place to safeguard people from harm.” from the report
Medicines
The home had systems for managing medicines. Staff received medicines training and had their competence checked.
“Systems were in place for managing medicines safely.” from the report
Respect and choice
The report found that people's choices, dignity, culture and religious needs were considered in care planning.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Communication and activities
The home recorded individual communication needs and used different ways to communicate. Relatives described people taking part in activities they chose.
“The service used a range of techniques to support communication.” from the report
Recruitment records
needs fixingSome recruitment records were incomplete or inconsistent. Inspectors said this meant they could not be assured that pre-employment checks had been sufficiently completed.
“However, recruitment records were not always updated.” from the report
Limited evidence from people using the home
needs fixingNobody was using the home during the inspection. This meant inspectors could not observe care, activities or how well the environment met people's needs.
“We were not able to observe and fully assess how safe the service was because there was no one using the service at the time of our inspection, therefore not enough evidence to rate this domain.” from the report
Environment and sensory needs
minorPeople did not have access to an outside space. A relative also said the home would benefit from a sensory area.
“People did not have access to an outside space, this could indicate that the environment may not meet everybody's needs.” from the report
Recording preferences
minorCare plans contained detailed information, but inspectors told the manager to make sure people's preferences were also recorded.
“We made the registered manager aware of the need to ensure people's preferences were also recorded.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every recruitment record is complete and references are properly recorded?
- 02How will you meet a person's sensory needs if they need a sensory area or other specialist space?
- 03How can people access outdoor activities when the home has no outside space?
- 04How will you record each person's preferences, including their choices about daily routines and activities?
- 05Can we see how care is observed and reviewed when people are staying at the home?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of a newly registered respite home, but nobody was using it at the time, so all five areas were inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 March 2022 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 Br3akfree Respite Care
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedCaring: Inspected but not ratedResponsive: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 2019.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Newham
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 £980 to £1,190 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She is a safe pair of hands and her years of experience certainly shine through.”
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
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.