CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Brabyns House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by risk assessments, suitable staffing, safeguarding training and safe recruitment checks. Inspectors found some medicines and environmental safety problems, but the home acted to address them.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says the previous comprehensive inspection rating was used.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager had oversight of the home, worked with health and local authority teams, and had systems for communication, audits and learning from incidents.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Brabyns House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, supportive care, but medicines and environmental safety needed quick fixes.
This was an unannounced focused inspection over 08, 09 and 17 November 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about medicines, staffing and infection control. They spoke with 12 people, four relatives and 11 staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was clean, PPE was available and used, visiting arrangements were safe, and staffing levels were suitable. People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and recruitment checks were completed.
Inspectors found low-level problems with medicines and environmental safety. These included medicines not always being given according to instructions, a window without a safety restrictor and a hot radiator without a safety cover. The home acted during and after the inspection to address these issues.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good and stayed the same as at the previous inspection. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew how to recognise abuse and how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives told us they felt they were safe living at the home.” from the report
Suitable staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with extra staff used when someone was unwell.
“We reviewed staffing levels and found suitable numbers of staff were on duty to provide appropriate support.” from the report
Infection control
The home was very clean, PPE was readily available and used, and visiting arrangements were in place.
“The home was very clean, and personal protective equipment (PPE) was readily available and used.” from the report
Supportive leadership
Staff felt supported and involved. The manager was visible, approachable and worked with outside organisations.
“Staff felt supported and involved in the service.” from the report
Medicines were not always given as instructed
needs fixingSome medicines were not always given in line with the manufacturer's instructions, including medicines that should be given before food. The home said this was corrected after the inspection.
“Staff did not always follow the manufacturer's instructions for administering medicines.” from the report
Medicines oversight needed improvement
needs fixingThe home had not been auditing its medicines management and some staff competency checks had not been completed recently. The manager put these checks in place during or after the inspection.
“The service did not audit their own management of medicines so could not be assured on how medicines were used safely.” from the report
Environmental safety issues
minorInspectors found a window without a safety restrictor and a hot radiator without a safety cover. The manager acted during and after the inspection to address these issues.
“We found one window without a safety restrictor and we noted a hot radiator without a safety cover.” from the report
Waste disposal guidance
minorInspectors were only somewhat assured about safety in the layout and hygiene practices of the premises. They directed the manager to relevant infection-control guidance about waste disposal.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked to make sure they are given at the correct times and before food where required?
- 02How often are medicines audits and staff competency checks completed now?
- 03What action was taken to fit the missing window restrictor and radiator cover?
- 04Have all actions from the last fire-risk assessment been completed, and can you show us the records?
- 05What arrangements are currently in place for safe visiting and infection-control waste disposal?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control measures were in place.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 March 2021. It looked at how the home prepared for and managed infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured about visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak arrangements. They also found risk assessments for people at higher medical risk from COVID-19.
The home had a visitor pod, small group areas and cleaning schedules. Staff were monitored for correct use of protective equipment and regular hand washing audits were completed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report does not provide an overall quality rating.
Safer visiting
The home had a visitor pod with booking slots and cleaning between visits to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The pod required a visitor booking slot and was disinfected in between uses to minimise any risk of cross contamination.” from the report
Small group areas
The layout allowed people and staff to be grouped and separated, reducing mixing within the home.
“Staff were able to support small groups of people to minimise mixing of people and staff.” from the report
Protective equipment checks
Staff use of protective equipment was monitored, and hand washing audits were carried out regularly.
“Staff were monitored throughout the day for the correct use of PPE and regular hand washing audits were completed.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found extensive cleaning arrangements and hand sanitising and protective equipment stations around the home.
“The home was very clean with extensive cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are visits currently arranged, and how is the visitor area cleaned between visits?
- 02Are people and staff still grouped into smaller areas to limit mixing?
- 03How do you check that staff use protective equipment and wash their hands correctly?
- 04How are new admissions tested and supported so they do not feel isolated?
- 05How are people at higher medical risk from COVID-19 identified and supported now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic, and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 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 Brabyns House
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 April 2011.
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 Stockport
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 £1,260 a week. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the 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.