CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Bradeney House Nursing & Care Home
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, responsive care, but leadership and record-keeping required improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 28 November 2023. They spoke with 10 people, 14 relatives and 14 staff. They reviewed care plans, medicines, recruitment and other records, and observed care. There were 96 people living there at the time.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Responsive were rated Good. Inspectors found enough suitable staff, safe medicines systems overall, kind support, activities and good involvement of families. People could receive visitors without restrictions.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found gaps and inconsistencies in care records, medicines records and incident records. Monitoring of call bell response times and mealtime experiences also needed to improve. The manager acted on issues raised during the inspection.
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors found sufficient numbers of suitable staff, with safe recruitment checks in place. Some people and relatives spoke positively about staff.
“The provider ensured there were sufficient numbers of suitable staff.” from the report
Personalised support
People were supported according to their needs and preferences. Staff knew people well, even where some care plan information needed improving.
“People were supported as individuals, in line with their needs and preferences.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives were made welcome and could use a family liaison role to help communicate concerns and improvements.
“Relatives were made to feel welcome, and the home had a dedicated family liaison staff member who supported communication across the home.” from the report
End of life planning
The home considered people's end of life wishes and worked with the GP to have anticipatory medicines available when needed.
“The provider made sure all staff were aware of people's wishes and that the information was accessible to staff in an emergency.” from the report
Care records were not always clear
needs fixingThe electronic care planning system did not always allow detailed plans for particular health conditions. Short term re-enablement care plans were also initially kept on paper, making it harder to monitor outcomes.
“The providers systems did not always effectively monitor the quality of the care provided to drive improvements.” from the report
Call bell monitoring
needs fixingSeveral people raised concerns that call bells could take longer to answer on some days. The home could no longer produce call bell reports and needed a better way to monitor response times.
“People were complimentary of the staff but the time to answer call bells was raised by several people.” from the report
Inconsistent medicine records
needs fixingSome nurses recorded as-required medicines in nursing records but not always in daily records. The report said information being held in different places could mean something was missed.
“Some nurses were only recording when 'as required' medicine was given in the nursing records and not always in the daily records.” from the report
Incident outcomes not fully recorded
minorThe home investigated incidents and learned from them, but some accident and incident forms were incomplete.
“However, more robust recording of the outcomes was needed.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the electronic care planning system since the inspection, especially for diabetes and short term re-enablement care?
- 02How do you now monitor call bell response times, and what were the results of the audit started after the inspection?
- 03How are as-required medicines recorded now, and how do you make sure records in different systems match?
- 04How do you make sure accident and incident forms record all outcomes and actions?
- 05How are residents and relatives now asked for feedback about mealtimes and service meetings?
This was an unannounced focused inspection prompted partly by concerns about staffing and complaints; the report gives ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led, while Effective and Caring were not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 February 2024 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, April 2019
Bradeney House Nursing & Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-led care after checking concerns about people whose behaviour may challenge.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 19 March 2019. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about the care and management of people whose behaviour may challenge.
Inspectors spoke with 12 people, five relatives and 15 staff. They observed care and checked 13 people's care and medicine records, staff training records and records about how the home was managed.
They found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and timely health referrals. They also found that the home was clean, equipment was maintained and incidents were reviewed to reduce repeat risks.
The overall rating was Good. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good, meaning the inspectors found legal requirements were met in the areas they checked. The previous rating, in January 2019, was also Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the skills and experience to meet people's needs. Staff responded to requests for help promptly.
“People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had the skills and experience to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Managing behaviour-related risks
The home had detailed assessments and care plans for people whose behaviour may challenge. These plans were reviewed to keep them suitable.
“There were comprehensive risk assessments and care plans to manage behaviours which may challenge.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored securely and records were complete. Staff who administered medicines had been trained and were assessed as competent.
“People's medicine administration records had been fully completed and there was an audit trail of all medicines held at the home.” from the report
Open management
The manager was visible and staff felt supported. The home shared learning from incidents and carried out regular quality checks.
“There was a supportive culture of openness and transparency.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you use my relative's behaviour-related risk assessment and care plan in everyday care?
- 02How many staff will usually be available for my relative's needs, and how quickly do they respond to call bells?
- 03How will you make sure my relative receives and takes their medicines safely?
- 04How do you record accidents or incidents, and what changes would you make if risks increased?
- 05How will my family be told about concerns, incidents or changes in my relative's care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only, prompted by concerns about people whose behaviour may challenge; the other three questions were not given new ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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.
Every inspection of Bradeney House Nursing & Care Home
6 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Bradeney House Nursing & Care Home →
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Bradeney House Nursing & Care Home →
- February 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 January 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
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.