CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bradbury Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding systems, risk assessments, staffing and medicines management were effective. Recruitment records were not available in the home during the visit, although they were later provided and showed the required checks had been completed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and knowledge of people's health, nutrition, communication and legal rights. The home worked with health and social care professionals, and restrictive interventions were used rarely and as a last resort.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, express their views and develop greater independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and adapted to people's needs and preferences. Inspectors found people had developed life skills, confidence and opportunities to take part in community activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager provided supportive leadership and encouraged feedback from people, families and staff. Quality checks were used to monitor safety, identify patterns and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and strong support for independence, with recruitment records not available during the visit.
Two inspectors visited on 23 and 31 July 2019. They reviewed care, medicine and management records, observed daily routines, and spoke with people, staff, relatives, friends and an advocate.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who understood their needs, communication and preferences.
People were helped to build skills, become more independent and take part in activities in the home and community. Medicines were managed safely, health needs were followed up, and families were involved in care decisions.
The overall rating stayed Good from the previous inspection. Inspectors noted that recruitment records were not available in the home during the visit, but the required checks were later provided and were found to have been completed.
Kind, personalised care
Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication methods. Inspectors saw close, trusting relationships and a relaxed atmosphere.
“People were supported by a stable staff group who were kind, caring and delivered high quality, personalised care.” from the report
Building independence
People were supported to learn everyday skills and take part in activities outside the home. This helped them become more confident and self-sufficient.
“People had developed life skills that made them more self-sufficient and confident.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Staff were trained and checked as competent to give medicines. Inspectors found particularly careful monitoring of medicines given only when needed.
“Robust monitoring of 'as required' medicines meant people did not receive them unnecessarily” from the report
Good communication support
Care plans explained how each person communicated. Staff used methods such as pictures, signs, drawing and body language to help people express choices and feelings.
“People's communication needs were thoroughly assessed, made clear in care plans, shared at team meetings and understood by staff.” from the report
Supportive leadership
The manager was closely involved and encouraged openness, feedback and partnership with families and health professionals.
“The registered manager demonstrated supportive leadership, a close daily involvement in the service and had a clear vision for service development.” from the report
Recruitment records were not held at the home
minorInspectors could not check the strength of the recruitment records during the visit because they were held by the provider's human resources department. The records were later provided and showed the necessary checks had been completed.
“Recruitment records were managed by the provider's human resources department and not available in the home so we could not assess their robustness.” from the report
- 01How will you support my relative to build the specific daily living skills and independence they want?
- 02What restrictive interventions might be used, and how do you make sure they are only used as a last resort?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred way of communicating, including pictures, signs, drawing or body language if needed?
- 04How do you monitor medicines given only when needed, and how do you review whether they are still necessary?
- 05How can families see or discuss recruitment checks, training and competency checks for staff supporting their relative?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with both the care provided and the home's premises considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 2019 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, February 2017
Bradbury Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one reported repair still awaiting completion.
The inspection was announced and took place on 1 February 2017. One inspector spoke with three people, managers, care staff and a social worker. The inspector reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, incidents, complaints and quality checks.
The home was supporting four people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine support, suitable staff training and checks before staff started work. People were supported to make choices, maintain their rights, access healthcare and receive enough food and drink.
Inspectors saw warm relationships between people and staff. Care was adapted to people's communication needs, preferences and pace. People were involved in their care plans, activities and decisions about their home.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. The report did not identify any breached regulations or enforcement action.
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff to support people safely, including one-to-one support. Staff were trained and checked before working, and their medicine practice was assessed.
“People were supported by enough staff to safely meet their needs. People received help with their medicines from staff who were trained and assessed as competent to support them safely.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff treating people with warmth, kindness and respect. Staff recognised when someone was anxious and adapted their support.
“Throughout this inspection we saw people being treated with kindness, warmth and respect.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care, activities, meals and personal choices. Staff supported people to build skills and do more for themselves.
“People were encouraged to be as independent as they could.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected individual needs and preferences. Staff knew people's likes, dislikes and possible causes of anxiety, and supported a range of activities.
“People were involved in a range of activities which were specific to them and which they found interesting, stimulating and fun.” from the report
Repair awaiting completion
minorInspectors were shown damage to an internal door. The manager had reported it, but the repair had not been completed by the inspection.
“One person showed us damage to an internal door. The registered manager was aware of the issue and had taken action to report it and was waiting for the repairs to be completed.” from the report
- 01Has the damaged internal door now been repaired, and how are repairs in the home tracked?
- 02What is the current position on the pending Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 03How are staff's skills in communication methods such as Makaton kept up to date?
- 04How will you make sure each person's specialist diet and speech and language therapy guidance is followed?
- 05How are people currently supported to choose activities and develop greater independence?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with an overall rating and ratings for safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 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 Bradbury Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 May 2015.
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
57 live-in carers within about an hour of Shropshire
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 £960 to £1,230 a week. 52 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
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.