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.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection-control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors visited the home on 22 October 2020. The visit was announced and formed part of a national review of infection prevention and control in care homes.
They found good arrangements to reduce infection risks. These included visitor screening, social distancing, safe admissions, effective use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and an up-to-date infection-control policy.
The home had also arranged safer visits for relatives, including garden visits and an indoor visiting area with screens. Large mobile television screens were being bought to help people stay in touch with relatives.
This was not a full inspection and the service was not given a quality rating. Only the Safe question was inspected, and it was recorded as inspected but not rated.
Proactive infection planning
The provider had acted early to reduce COVID-19 risks. This included restricting visitors and buying extra protective equipment before supplies became difficult to obtain.
“The provider had been proactive in identifying the risks from COVID-19.” from the report
Visitor screening
Visitors were monitored and assessed at an infection-control station at the entrance. This included a declaration and a digital temperature check.
“The home had set up an infection control (IPC) station in entrance so all visitors could be monitored and risk assessed.” from the report
Staff support and continuity
Staff were given meals, recognition and practical support. Staff turnover was very low and the home did not need agency staff.
“This all helped staff to feel valued and supported and staff turnover was very low.” from the report
Maintaining family contact
The home arranged garden visits and created a screened indoor visiting area as the weather worsened. It was also buying mobile television screens to support communication for people with hearing or sight impairments.
“Regular garden visits had been set up on an appointment system” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection-control and visitor-screening arrangements are currently in place?
- 02How are protective equipment and testing arrangements managed for residents and staff?
- 03How can relatives visit now, including if indoor visits are restricted?
- 04How does the home support residents who find mobile phones difficult to use when contacting relatives?
- 05Is the home still able to avoid using agency staff, and how is staffing maintained?
This was an announced thematic inspection focused only on infection prevention and control and Safe; the other key questions were not inspected and no ratings were given. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 2020 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, December 2017
Bradbury House rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with gaps in care records and activities compared with the previous inspection.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 27 October and 1 November 2017. The first visit was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked six people's care records and other management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe, were treated kindly, had enough staff and received the care they needed. Medicines, staff training, recruitment checks, health care support and fire safety arrangements were generally found to be suitable.
The home remained Good overall, as it had been at the June 2015 inspection. However, Responsive fell from Outstanding to Good. Inspectors found that some activities were less suitable for people whose health had changed, and some care records were incomplete, undated or not reviewed regularly. They also recommended improving records of best-interest decisions.
Enough staff
People said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw people receiving support promptly.
“Throughout our inspection we saw that people received the support they required promptly because there were sufficient staff to care for people.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, used their preferred names and supported them in a calm, respectful way.
“The staff were patient and gave each person support in a calm and unhurried way.” from the report
Family contact
Visitors were welcomed, and people could keep in touch with friends and family.
“People were able to maintain relationships that were important to them.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingSome care plans were incomplete, undated or not reviewed regularly. This meant written guidance might not always reflect people's current needs, although staff knew how to provide the care required.
“Some of the records we looked at had not been fully completed and some records had not been reviewed regularly.” from the report
Activities
needs fixingThere were activities, but some people could not take part as their health and care needs increased. Information about planned activities was also not always shared early or clearly enough.
“However, relatives we spoke with told us that, as people's care needs increased, they were not able to take part in some of the activities provided.” from the report
Best-interest records
minorPeople who knew residents well were involved when decisions were made for someone unable to agree to care. The records explaining those decisions needed to be better.
“We recommend that the provider take advice about the making and recording of best interest decisions.” from the report
Evacuation plans
minorSome personal emergency evacuation plans did not reflect changes in people's support needs. They were reviewed during the inspection.
“At the time of our inspection some of the PEEPs needed to be reviewed to reflect changes in the support individuals required.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every care plan is complete, dated and reviewed regularly?
- 02What activities are available for people whose health or mobility means they cannot join the usual activities?
- 03How are best-interest decisions discussed, recorded and kept up to date?
- 04When was each person's personal emergency evacuation plan last reviewed?
- 05How do your quality checks identify incomplete care records and other problems?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; the overall rating remained Good, while Responsive changed from Outstanding at the June 2015 inspection to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 December 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.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 March 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Cumberland
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.
8 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.