CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Bradbury House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention measures, including visitor checks, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreak management.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about COVID-19 infection controls, although some worn areas made cleaning more difficult.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 1 March 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic, rather than a full inspection of the home.
Inspectors were assured that the home had controls for visitors, social distancing, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and managing outbreaks. People were monitored for COVID-19 symptoms, including temperature and oxygen levels.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Visitor infection controls
The home had clear visitor arrangements, including temperature checks and hand sanitising before entry.
“There were clear protocols in place for visitors which included temperature testing and sanitising before entering the service.” from the report
COVID-19 monitoring
People were checked for symptoms, with temperature and oxygen checks used to identify changes in health.
“Checks on temperature and oxygen levels were undertaken to enable staff to quickly identify any changes in peoples health .” from the report
Testing arrangements
The home was following government guidance for testing people living there and staff.
“The service was following the government guidance on whole home testing for people and staff.” from the report
Infection control systems
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely and had plans to prevent or manage outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Worn areas
minorSome parts of the home showed wear, making them harder to clean. The provider said refurbishment was planned when it could be done safely.
“Some areas of the service were showing signs of wear which made cleaning more difficult.” from the report
- 01Has the planned refurbishment of worn areas been completed?
- 02Which areas were harder to clean, and what is being done while refurbishment is pending?
- 03How are visitors currently checked before entering the home?
- 04How often are people living in the home and staff tested for infections?
- 05What ratings did the home receive at its last full inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Bradbury House was rated Good and inspectors found caring, safe and well-managed support, with a few safety issues to check.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 25 and 30 October 2017. One inspector and an expert by experience visited, spoke with people, visitors and staff, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall and remained Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, well-managed medicines, suitable training, kind interactions and care plans that recorded people's needs and preferences.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. The home had a stable staff team, good access to health professionals, activities and food, and systems for handling concerns and monitoring quality.
Inspectors did identify some issues. There was no gate at the top of a flight of stairs, some furniture was stained or damaged, and one person had accessed fluids that had not been thickened as required. The manager took action or said they would review these points.
Stable staffing
The home had a stable staff team and inspectors found enough staff to respond to people's needs promptly. Staff knew people well.
“The service benefited from having a stable staff team and any absences were covered from within the staff team.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Audits were used to check that the arrangements were working.
“Medicine records were clear and well organised and guidance was in place for staff on the administration of 'as and when required' medicines.” from the report
Kind care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. Staff noticed when people needed help and supported them discreetly.
“We saw examples of positive caring interactions whereby staff were observed being attentive and kind in how they spoke to people.” from the report
Activities and interests
People could take part in varied activities, trips and social opportunities. Inspectors saw people engaging with an activity involving animals.
“People were supported to follow interests which promoted their wellbeing.” from the report
Quality oversight
The manager and area manager used audits and management information to monitor care and safety. The report says action was taken when problems were identified.
“The registered manager and the area manager continued to assess the quality of the service through a programme of audits.” from the report
Stair safety
seriousThere was a gate at the bottom of a flight of stairs but not at the top. The manager said they would review the risk assessment because people could be at risk of falls.
“We saw there was a gate at the bottom of a flight of stairs to reduce the likelihood of falls but there was none at the top of the stairs.” from the report
Damaged furniture
minorInspectors saw some staining on furniture and damage to some tables. The manager ordered replacements, and some were in place by the second inspection day.
“The service smelt fresh and clean, however we did note some staining on some furniture and damage to some tables.” from the report
- 01What was the outcome of the review of the risk assessment for the stairs, and what protection is now in place at the top?
- 02How do you make sure every person receives fluids at the correct thickness, and how is this checked?
- 03Have all the stained or damaged items of furniture been replaced?
- 04How many staff are normally on duty during the day and night, and how are absences covered?
- 05What activities and outings are currently available for someone with my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 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 House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 July 2013.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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 £1,260 a week. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.